ERRATA

Sl.No. Page No. Column Line No. For Reid

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. (viii) First 13 Advised Adviser
2. " Second 12 Janardhan Janardan
3. 2 First 12 he State the State
4. 5 Second 30 allged alleged
5. 7 Second 21 oppointing appointing
6. 8 Second 35 lo whills low hills
7. 9 First 3 months mouths
8. 9 First 4 is lands islands
9. 9 First 11 Nil Nile
10 10 Second 10 Bennihala Bennihalla
11 10 Second 46 Up stream upstream
12 11 Second 6 2nd and
13 11 Table S. No. 17 66 62
under Col. 3
.
14 12 Below the table 1 Streame Streams
15 12 Second 37 below the'table Add the word "and" between the words "Tungabhadra" and
"of"
.
16 13 Second 5 dence dense
17 13 Second 32 section sections
18 14 Table Col. 1 last Chikmagalar Chikmagalur
line
. (Mysore)
19 15 »» Col. 1 first line Tumkar Tumkur
20 15 " Col. 6 Second line 394 39.4
21 17 Table Under Col. 7 area areas
against Lower
. Bhima K. 6
22 18 First 13 arithmatic ÷ arithmetic
23 19 — Foot note^ll) MYKIIIp. , MYKIIIp. 90,
24. 21 Second 30 of the sea. to the sea.
25 21 Second 34 techniques technique
26. 21 Foot note (16) Vol. I, pp. 259. VoLI/p. 259.
27 22 Table showing Col. 4 against SI. 135.7 136.7
sourcewise No. 4
.
irrigation
28 23 First Last Muniyern Muniyeru
29 27 Second 19 Add the word "with" after the word "rain-fed"
30 29 Second 43 enginees engineers
31 32 Second 12th below the right rights
Table
.
32 34 Foot note (8) Last line p. 24 p. 224
33 36 First Transpose line 22 to 23 and vice versa
34 37 First Last line Sufarmul Sagarmul
35 37 — Foot note APDD APDK
36 37 Second First Mukherjee Mukherjea
37. 37 Second 27-28 ratification ratifications
38 38 First 3 of para 2 taking making
39. 38 First in table "Projects Mulehir Weir Mulchir Weir
under construction"
.
40 39 First 3 below the table 1940 5 T. M. at., 1940.5 T.M.Cft.
41. 39 — In statement 'B' Figure 173 may be read against "Koyna H.E. and Irrigation
Col. 2 Project"
.
42 40 Second 6th line below the Padmanahba Padmanabha
Table
.
1 M of I & P / 73
 2

1 2 3 4 5 6

43. 57 First 27 Stara Satara

44. 62 First 12 Cemenet Cement
45. 63 First 39 toad load
46. 64 First 38 (11) (41)
47. 64 — Foot note (42) SPII SPIII
48. 68 First 20 Project Projects
49. 68 Second 3/ Proposal Proposals
50. 68 — Foot note (11) 3-39 2-39
51. 69 Second 25 surplus surpluses
52. 69 Second 41 allocation allocations
53. 74 First 41 58 58
— 100= — x 100-
78 78
54. 76 Second 10 These the
23 Q=ML[d H— +CLd
55. 77 Second Q=3. 1L [ (h+ha)3/2 ^h 3/2]+CLD
h .) 3 / 2 h a . 3 / 2 ]
√ 2g(h+ha)
56. 77 Second 25 h
a, and d √ 2glhTh
ha, C and ) d
57. 79 Second Heading of the last Q-CL[cH -f ha )3/2 - ha 3/2 ] Q=CL[(H + h.)3/ 2 -h a3/ 2 ]
Col. of the Table
58. 80 Second 9 Q=CL[(H + ha ) 3/2 _h a3/2] Q=CL[[(H + h a) 3/2 --ha 3/2]
59. 80 Second 40 3.75 2.75
60. 80 Second 47 Add the word "of" between the words "velocity" and
61. 84 Second 14 litle little
62. 94] Second 23 on one
63. 95 Foot note (39) Berberk Berber
64. 104 Second 19 Kokak Gokak
65. 105 First 3 reservoir The reservoir
66. 106 First 1st line below the Nagarjunasagar Nagarjunasagar
table
67. 107 First 10 1056 1956
68. 112 First 36 sector sectors
69. 114 Against S. No. 1 sulomerged submerged
under Col. No. 5
of the Table *
70. 117 Against 1962-63 60.63 60.53
under col. No. 2 of
the Table
71. 118 Foot note (110) ishna Krishna
72. 120 in the last table 5446 5.446
against S. No. 3
under Col. No. 6
73. 121 First Against S. No. 12 of Add K. 12 in column
the Table.
74. 122 Second 1st line below Kotipallavgu Kotipallavagu
the Col. "Project"
 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

KRISHNA WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

THE REPORT
OF

THE KRISHNA WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

WITH THE DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF WATER DISPUTES REGARDING
THE INTER-STATE RIVER KRISHNA AND THE RIVER VALLEY THERE OF
BETWEEN

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. The State of Karnataka
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh
4. The State of Madhya Pradesh Parties to the dispute
5. The State of Orissa } until 19th April, 1971.

VOLUME I

NEW DELHI
1973
COMPOSITION OF THE KRISHNA WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

CHAIRMAN

Shri R. S. Bachawat,
(Judge of the Supreme Court of India until 31-
7-1969).

MEMBERS

Shri Shamsher Bahadur,

(Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
until 14-11-1969).

Shri D. M. Bhandari,
(Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court
until 15-12-1969).

SECRETARY

Shri M. Prasad

(i)
 CONTENTS

VOLUME I

PAGE

Letter of transmittal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (v)

. .
Representatives of the State Governments . . . . . . . . . . . (vii)
. .
CHAPTER- I Genesis of the dispute transmittal . . . . . . . . . . . 1
. . . .
CHAPTER- II Reference and subsequent proceedings . . . . . . . . . . 3

CHAPTER- III The Krishna river and river basin . . . . . . . . . . . 8

. . .
CHAPTER- IV Inter-State Conference and disputed agreement of July 1951 . . . . . . 28

CHAPTER- V Disputes concerning the Tungabhadra . . . . . . . . 44

CHAPTER- VI Claims arising out of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 . . . . . . 55

CHAPTER- VII Diversion of the Godavari Waters to the Krishna . . . . . . 66

CHAPTER- VIII Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

CHAPTER- IX Determination of dependable flow . . . . . . . . 73

CHAPTER X Return flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

CHAPTER- XI Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and law relating to equitable 90
apportionment of the benefits of an inter-State river . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
CHAPTER- XII Protection of existing uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

(111)
 Government of India
Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal
D-27, New Delhi South Extension, Part-II

No. 18(5)/73-KWDT.

Dated the 24th December, 1973

To Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation & Power

The Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Irrigation & Power,
NEW DELHI.
referred to the Tribunal certain matters connected with and
relevant to the said water dispute vide Reference Nos.
4/2/70-WD dated the 18th July, 1970, 4|2|70-WD(i)
dated the 2nd September, 1970, 4/2/70-WD (ii) dated
the 2nd September, 1970 and 4|2|70-WD, dated the 20th
February, 1971.

Sir, The Tribunal has investigated the matters referred to

it, and has prepared its report setting out the facts as
On the 10th April, 1969, the Government of India found by it and giving its decision on the matters referred
constituted the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal vide to it.
Notification No. S.O. 1419 dated the 10th April, 1969
issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation The unanimous report of the Tribunal is forwarded
and Power. Vacancies in the offices of Members of the herewith.
Tribunal were filled by fresh appointments made by the
Government of India vide Notification Nos. S.O. 1738 Yours faithfully,
dated the 3rd May, 1969 and S.O. 4858 dated the 4th
December, 1969 issued by the Government of India, (R. S. Bachawat)
Ministry of Irrigation & Power. Chairman

(Shamsher Bahadur)
On the 10th April, 1969, the Government of India,
Member
Ministry of Irrigation & Power, referred to the Tribunal
for adjudication the water dispute regarding the inter-
State river Krishna and the river valley thereof vide (D. M. Bhandari)
Reference No. DW II. 32(19)/68 dated the 10th Member
April, 1969. On the 18th July, 1970, the 2nd September,
1970 and the 20th February, 1971. the Enclosure : Report (Volumes I-IV).

(V)
 Representatives of the State Governments before the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal.

I. For the State of Maharashtra.

2. Shri S. G. Balekundry, Chief Engineer,
Advocates (from 1-9-1972).
1. Shri H. M. Seervai, Advocate General. 3. Shri B. Subramanyam, Superintending
and Engineer.
2. Shri T. R. Andhyarujina, Advocate. 4. Shri M. V. Aswathnarayana Setty, Adviser.
Instructed by
III. For the State of Andhra Pradesh.
3. Shri K. J. Choksi, Solicitor.
Advocates
Other representatives
1. Shri P. Ramachandra Reddi, Advocate
1. Shri K. K. Framji, Technical Consultant. General.
2. Shri N. S. Pardasani, Secretary to Govern-- 2. Shri Anwarulla Pasha, Advocate.
ment, (up to 15-11-1969).
3. Shri D. V. Sastri, Advocate.
3. Shri B. A. Kulkarni, Secretary to Govern- !
ment. (from 16-11-1969).
The following Advocates also appeared in the
4. Shri E. C. Saldanha, Joint Secretary. initial stages :—
5. Shri K. S. Shankar Rao, Deputy Secretary. 1. Shri A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate, Supreme
Court.
6. Shri V. B. Mulye, Under Secretary.
2. Shri D. Narasa Raju, Advocate.
7. Shri N. M. Jog, Under Secretary.
3. Shri P. Rami Reddi, Standing Counsel for
II. For the State of Karnataka. the Government of Andhra Pradesh at
Delhi.
Advocates
Other representatives
1. Shri T. Krishna Rao, Ex-Advocate, General.
1. Shri M. Sitarama Sastry,
2. Shri A. G. Holla, Advocate.
Special Officer (Chief Engineer).
3. Shri S. S. Javali, Advocate, Supreme Court.
2. Shri G. K. S. Iyengar,
The following Advocates also appeared in the Superintending Engineer.
initial stages :— 3. Shri B. Gopalakrishna Murty,
Superintending Engineer.
1. Shri M. K. Nambyar, Senior Advocate,
Supreme Court. 4. Shri K. Ramachandran,
Research Officer.
2. Shri V. S. Malimath, Advocate General.
The following representatives also appeared in the
Other representatives
initial stages :—
1. Shri B. C. Angadi, Director, Water Resources
1. Shri A. R. Venkataraman, Adviser.
Development Organisation, (up to 31-8-
1972). 2. Shri Mod Ram, Adviser.
3. Shri Mir Jafar Ali, Adviser.

(vii)
1 M of I&P/73—2
IV. For the State of Madhya Pradesh. (up to 2. Dr. L. M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Sup-
19-4-1971) reme Court.

Advocates 3. Shri Santosh Chatterjee, Advocate, Supreme

1. Shri K. A. Chitale, Advocate General, Court.

2. Shri U. N. Bhachawat, Advocate. 4. Shri Bimal Krushna Pal, Advocate.

3. M/s. J. B. Dadachanji & Co., Advocates.
5. Shri Madhabananda Das, Advocate.
4. Shri V. K. Sanghi, Advocate.

Other representatives 6. Shri Goyind Das, Advocate, Supreme

Court.
1. Shri S. B. Lal, Secretary to Government.
2. Shri M. S. Chaudhary, Additional Chief Other representatives
Secretary to Government.
3. Shri T. N. Bahel, Special Commissioner.
1. Shri U. C. Agarwal Secretary t o
4. Shri K. L. Handa, Irrigation Adviser and Government.
Chief Engineer.
2. Shri Janardan Tripathy, Chief Engineer
5. Shri R. L. Gupta, Deputy Chief Engineer.
Shri K. C. Gantavat, Additional Chief
V. For the State of Orissa. (up to 19-4-1971). Engineer.
Advocates
4. Shri Nilakantha Mishra, Superintending En-
1. Shri Asok Das, Advocate General. gineer.

(viii)
 CHAPTER I
Genesis of the dispute
1
Before the middle of the nineteenth century, there was
little development of the water resources of the Krishna
basin. Numerous tanks and small diversion works were in
operation, but no major work had been constructed. The rivers
of the Krishna river system rising in the Western Ghats
had plentiful supplies during the monsoon months but most
of the water was wasted to the sea. From about 1855
onwards, major irrigation works were undertaken. Since
1855 up to 1928, the Krishna Delta, canal system, the
Kurnool Cuddapah C'anal, the Mutha canals, the Nira Left
Canal, the Vanivilas Sagar and the Nira Right Canal
were constructed. During the period 1918 to 1930, the Tatas
constructed the Tata Hydel Works for generating hydro
power by westward diversion of water. Until the conclusion
of the Second World War, the engineering works for
development of water resources were few in number, the
water supply was ample in relation to the demand upon it
and no use of water seriously affected other uses. There
was, therefore little scope for disputes regarding the use,
control and distribution of the Krishna waters. British India
was subject to the unitary control of the Government of
India and even the Princely States were under its
paramountcy control. There were minor disputes relating to
2 the Tungabhadra waters but they were amicably settled in
1892 and 1933.
Under the Government of India Act, 1935, water became
an exclusive provincial subject and specific provision was
made for settlement of water disputes. Before Independence,
the Provinces of Madras and Bombay, the States of
Hyderabad and Mysore and a few other Princely States had
riparian interests in the Krishna basin. The agreements of June
and July 1944 provisionally settled disputes concerning the
sharing of the Tungabhadra waters, and enabled the States
concerned to undertake the construction of the Tungabhadra
Project, the Rajolibunda Diversion Scheme, the Bhadra
Reservoir Project and the Tunga Anicut. The Radhanagari
Project and Ghataprabha Left Bank Canal were also
undertaken before 1950.
In 1950, when the Constitution came into force, the
entire Krishna basin fell within the territories of the States
of Bombay. Mysore, Hyderabad and Madras. There was
planning at the State and National levels for intensive
development of water resources. The States of Bombay,
Hyderabad and Madras pro-
posed important schemes for utilisation of the Krishna
waters, like the Koyna, Upper Krishna, Lower Krishna,
Krishna Pennar and other projects. At an inter-State
conference held in July, 1951 at New Delhi, a
memorandum of agreement was drawn up apportioning the
available supply of the Krishna river system among the four
riparian States.
3
Apparently, the memorandum of agreement drawn up at
the inter-State conference in July 1951 had settled the
conflicting claims of the riparian States with regard to the
supplies of the Krishna river system for a period of 25 years.
But the settlement was more apparent than real. As the State of
Mysore refused to ratify the agreement, it was inevitable that
disputes regarding the validity of the agreement would arise
sooner or later. In the meantime, the Planning Commission
continued to clear projects on the assumption that the
memorandum of agreement of 1951 was binding upon the
States.
Extensive territorial changes were made in the
Krishna basin by the Andhra $tate Act, 1953 as from the 1st
October, 1953 and the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 as
from the 1st November, 1956. The new States of Bombay,
Mysore and Andhra Pradesh became the riparian States in
place of the old States of Bombay, Hyderabad, Mysore and
Madras. In view of the extensive territorial changes, the
Central Water and Power Commission drew up a scheme for
re-allocation of the Krishna waters, but the scheme ,was not
accepted by the States. An inter-State conference was held
on the 26th and 27th September, 1960, but no settlement
could be reached. The legal existence and validity of the
agreement of 1951 were now vigorously challenged. The State 4
Governments began to raise objections to the clearance of
new projects on the basis of the 1951 allocations.
After 1951 and before September 1960, the States
concerned undertook the construction of several important
major projects such as the Nagarjunasagar, the Musi, the
Tungabhadra High Level Canal Stage I, the Koyna Hydel
Stage I, the Khadakwasla Stage I, the Ghataprabha Stage II,
the Ghod and the Vir Dam.
More schemes were put forward by the State Governments
and their aggregate demand was in excess of the available
supplies. As the pressure on the available supplies
increased, the disputes became more bitter and
 2
vociferous. Objections were raised concerning Nagar-
junasagar, Srisailam and Koyna projects.
In January 1962, the Mysore Government applied to
the Central Government for a reference of the disputes to the
Tribunal. In May 1961, the Central Government appointed
the Krishna Godavari Commission and in August 1962, the
Commission submitted their report. The Commission found
that without further data it was not possible to determine the
dependable flow accurately. They also found that the supplies
available in the Krishna basin were inadequate to meet
the demands of all the projects of the State Governments.
In view of the shortage in the river supplies, they indicated
the procedure that should be adopted with regard to the
5 projects under construction and the new projects which the
State Governments were anxious to undertake
immediately. They put forward proposals for diversion of the
Godavari waters into the Krishna and recommended further
investigation. They also recommended that regular gauging
should be carried out at key sites on the river system.
On the 23rd March, 1963, the Union Minister for
Irrigation and Power stated that according to legal opinion at
the highest level, the agreement of 1951 had become void, if
it was not initially void, at least partially. He stated that new
projects should not be held up pending final allocation of the
Krishna supplies and should be cleared on the footing that
the withdrawals of supplies by Maharashtra, Mysore and
Andhra Pra-desh should not exceed 400, 600 and 800 T.M.C.
respectively. However, the States concerned were not
agreeable to this interim allocation. In June 1963, the
Maharashtra Government asked for reference of the disputes
to the Tribunal.
Since September 1960, the Central Government has given
clearance to several important major projects such as the
Srisailam, the Tungabhadra High Level Canal Stage II, the
Upper Krishna, the Malaprabha, the Bhima, the Kukadi,
the Krishna, the Warna and the Koyna Hydel Stages II and
III.
Action was also taken on the recommendations of the
Krishna Godavari Commission. Investigations concerning 6
suitable Godavari diversion links were made at the technical
level, but no agreed formula was arrived at. Model
experiments were conducted at research stations with a view
to re-Construct the yearly flow data at Vijayawada, but the
reliability of the model experiments and the accuracy of the
reconstructed flow -data were disputed, and the problem of
quantitative assessment of the dependable supply remained
unsolved.
The Central Government tried their best to settle the
dispute by negotiations. Several inter-State conferences were
held, but the dispute could not be settled. Fresh applications
for reference of the dispute were made by the State
Governments in 1968 and 1969. Eventually in April 1969,
the Central Government referred the disputes to this
Tribunal.
In view of the re-organisation of States and the re-
distribution of the Tungabhadra Valley between the States
of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh, disputes arose concerning the
continuing validity of the earlier Tungabhadra agreements,
the use control and distribution of the Tungabhadra waters
and the management of certain existing works on the
Tungabhadra. These disputes were also referred to the
Tribunal.
 CHAPTER II
7 Reference and subsequent proceedings
Reference of the dispute • On the 10th April, 1969,
the Government of India constituted the Krishna
Water Disputes Tribunal. On the 3rd May, 1969
and the 4th December, 1969, vacancies in the offices of
Members of the Tribunal were filled by fresh appointments.
On the 10th April, 1969, t he Govern ment of
India referred to the Tribunal for adjudication the
water dispute regarding the inter-State river Krishna and
the river valley thereof emerging from the letters of the
Mysore Government dated the 29th January, 1962 and
the 8th July, 1968, the letters of the Maharashtra
Government dated the llth June, 1963 and the 26th
August, 1968 and the letters of the Andhra Pradesh
Government dated the 21st April, 1968 and the 21st
January, 1969. The complaints of the State
Governments were set out in the aforesaid letters. In
the letter of reference, the Government of India
requested the Tribunal to consider the
representations of some of the States concerning the
possibility of diversion of waters of the river Godavari to
the river Krishna and the opposition of some of the other
States to such diversion.
Summary of complaint of the Mysore Govern-
ment: The memorandum of agreement drawn up by
the Planning Commission regarding the distribution of
8 the waters of the river Krishna between the States of
Bombay, Madras, Hyderabad and Mysore as a result of
the inter-State Conference held on the 27th and 28th
July, 1951 is not binding as no agreement matured as a
result of the Conference. The proposal of the Central
Water & Power Commission regarding the re-allocation
of the Krishna waters in consequence of the reorganisation
of States and the statement of the Union Minister for
Irrigation and Power in the Lok Sabha on March 23,
1963 regarding the interim allocation of the Krishna
waters are not acceptable to Mysore. The proposed
Srisailam and Nagarjunasagar Stage II projects, the
erection of crest gates on the Nagarjunasagar dam and
the proposed westward diversion of the Krishna waters
in excess of 67.5 T.M.C. are objectionable. Mysore
claims an equitable distribution of the waters of the
Krishna and a stay of implementation of the projects
of Andhra Pradesh and of Maharashtra's westward
diversion of the Krishna waters in excess of 67.5
T.M.C.
3
Summary of complaint of the Maharashtra Government:
The agreement of 1951 regarding the allocation of the
Krishna waters is void and not bi nding. The int erim
allocati on of t he Krishna waters by the Union
Minister on March 23, 1963 cannot be accepted. The
implementation of Srisailam project, the erection of the
Nagarjunasagar crest gates and the clearance of
projects of the lower States without Maharashtra's 9
prior consent are objectionable. Maharashtra claims an
assessment of the dependable flow of the Krishna, an
equitable apportionment of the Krishna waters and in
case it is found that any State is utilising more than its
legitimate share of the Krishna waters, an order direct-
ing it to release the excess waters and, if such release
is impossible, an order directing it to make good the
shortfall by diverting its share of the Godavari waters to
the Krishna Valley.
Summary of complaint of Andhra Pradesh Gov-
ernment: The 1951 Agreement regarding all ocation
of the Krishna waters is valid and binding. Maharashtra
and Mysore are committing breaches of the 1951
agreement. Moreover, Mysore is committing breaches of
the 1944 agreement between Madras and Mysore
concerning the Tungabhadra waters. Andhra Pradesh
claims an injunction restraining Maharashtra and Mysore
from undertaking works involving utilisation of more
than their respective shares under the 1951 agreement,
an injunction restraining "Maharashtra from diverting
westwards more than 67.5 T.M.C. of water for the
Koyna project, an order directing Maharashtra to
reduce the storage capacity of Koyna dam to 36
T.M.C., and an injunction restraining Maharashtra
and Mysore from intercepting flows to the Delta and 10
other irrigation works of Andhra Pradesh.
Parties to the dispute: The States of Andhra
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mysore, Madhya Pradesh and
Orissa were the original parties to the water dispute.
The St at es of M ad hya P radesh and Ori ss a
were made parties as they were interested in the diversion
of the Godavari waters to the Krishna. On the 19th
April, 1971, all the parties jointly stated that none of
the States would ask for a mandatory order for such
diversion. Thereafter, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa
were not interested in the Krishna case and they were
discharged from the records of the case.
 4
Subsequent references.—On the 18th July, 1970. the
Government of India at the request of the Andhra Pradesh
Government referred to the Krishna Water Disputes
Tribunal matters concerning the release of
waters by Mysore for the benefit of Andhra Pradesh
from (i) the Upper Krishna Project ; (ii) the
Tungabhadra Left Bank Canal and (iii) the Bhima
Project. On the 2nd September, 1970, matters
concerning the release of waters by Maharashtra for
the benefit of Mysore from (i) a storage dam at Ajra
and (ii) the Koyna Project were referred to the
Tribunal at the request of the Mysore Government. On
the same day, matters concerning the agreements of
11 1892 and 1933 were referred to the Tribunal at the
request of the Andhra Pradesh Government. On the 20th
February, 1971, the Government of India at the
request of the Andhra Pradesh Government referred to
the Tribunal matters concerning the release of water from
the Tungabhadra Reservoir to meet the requirements of
the Kurnool-Cuddapah Canal and Rajolibunda
Canal and as contribution to the Krishna and con-
cerning the vesting in the Tungabhadra Board of the
control of the Tungabhadra dam and reservoir and the
main canal on the left side, the Munirabad Power
House, the Rajolibunda Headworks and the length of
the common canal of the Rajolibunda Project in the
Mysore State limits.
Pleadings: The parties filed their statements of case and
rejoinders (APK Volumes I to X, MRK Volumes I to
VIII, MYK Volumes I to VIII, MPK Volumes I to III and
ORK Volumes I and II) and also additional statements (S P.
Volumes I to IV). The pleadings clarify the disputes
raised in the complaints made by the States concerned, and
specify the reliefs claimed by them.
Maharashtra(1) prayed for (a) a declaration that the
agreement of 1951 was invalid and/or had ceased to be
operative, (b) allocation of the equitable share of the
sstages in the dependable flow of the Krishna basin, (c)
12
ssuitable provision for the sharing of the excess or
deficiency of supplies when they would be more or less
than the dependable flow, (d) direction for diversion of
the waters of the river Godavari to the Krishna and (c)
suitable machinery for imple-menting the order of the
Tribunal.
Mysore (2) prayed for (a) allocation to the parties of
the available waters in the Krishna river system
( 1 ) MMR 1 pp 223 –226.
(2) M Y K I pp. 64–65.
(3) APK 1 pp. 133–137.
(4) SP III pp. 12–23.
(5) MRK I p. 38: MRK II pp. 50-60; MYK I pp. 52-53; APK I pp. 123-125,
determined at 75 per cent dependability ignoring the alleged
agreement of 1951, (b) sharing of waters in years when the
available supply would be more or less than the yield
determined on the basis of 75 per cent dependability, (c)
direction for diversion of surplus waters of the Godavari to
the Krishna basin, (d) in-junction restraining diversion of
the waters of the Krishna beyond the Krishna basin, (e) stay
of further implementation of Srisailam and Nagarjunasagar
projects and (f) suitable machinery for implementation of the
decision of the Tribunal.
Andhra Pradesh (3) prayed for a declaration that the
agreement of 1951 was valid and binding and for suitable
directions for implementation of the agreement. In case the
agreement of 1951 was held to be not valid and binding, 13
Andhra Pradesh prayed for (a) a declaration that the
dependable yield of the river Krishna was 1745 T.M.C. of
water, (b) direction for ensuring full supply in all years for
projects committed before 1951 on a daily basis and for
projects committed up to 1960 on a weekly basis, (c)
allocation of the balance dependable yield without taking
into consideration the diversion of water from the Godavari
to the Krishna, (d) sharing of the excess flows over and above
the dependable yield, (e) injunction restraining further
westward diversion of the Krishna waters, (f) directions for
the working of the Tungabhadra Left Bank Canal and
other schemes in Mysore so that areas in Andhra Pradesh
might not be deprived of the benefits and use of waters
from those schemes, (g) implementation of the
agreement of 1944 and (h) other reliefs.
In the supplemental pleadings (4) Andhra Pradesh prayed
for (a) release of water from the Tungabhadra dam for the
benefit of certain downstream projects and by way of
contribution to the Krishna (b) vesting of the control and
administration of certain works in the Tungabhadra Board
and (c) directions for ensuring the share of Andhra Pradesh
in the power generated at the Munirabad Power House.
Claims of Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh on 14
the waters of the Krishna river system: In their statements
of case, (5) Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh asserted
the following claims to the utilisations of the waters of the
Krishna river system for their existing and future
projects:—
 5
State Gross utilisation in T.M.C.
Maharashtra 828.70
Mysore 1430.00
Andhra Pradesh 1888.10
4146.80
In addition to the above demands, Maharashtra
claimed 32.5 T.M.C. from regenerated flows and 70 to
80 T.M.C. for industrial use and domestic water supply,
Andhra Pradesh claimed 120 T.M.C. for water supply and
industrial use and Mysore stated that its demand for
1430 T M.C. did not include its needs of water for
domestic and industrial use.
Admittedly, there is not enough water in the Krishna
river system to satisfy all the claims asserted against it
by the three States.
Points of dispute: The preliminary point of dispute
between the parties is whether any agreement regarding
allocation of the Krishna waters was concluded as a
result of the deliberations at the inter-State conference
held in New Delhi on the 27th and 28th July, 1951 and,
15
if so, whether the agreement is valid and subsisting. If
there is a valid and subsisting agreement, it must be
implemented. If not, the" parties want an equitable
apportionment of the Krishna waters for their beneficial
uses, so that they may know the limits within which
each can operate and may plan their water resources
development accordingly. For the purpose of equitable
allocation, it is necessary to determine the dependable flow
of the Krishna, regarding which there is a dispute
between the parties and to consider whether return flows
from irrigation and the possibility of diversion of the
waters of the river Godavari to the Krishna should be
taken into account.
The next main point of dispute is how and on
what basis the equitable apportionment should be
made. This dispute requires consideration of the
following matters; first, what are the relevant laws and
guidelines on the subject; secondly, whether and to what
extent the projects in operation or under construction
should be protected and their utilisations preferred to
contemplated uses; thirdly, whether any preference or
priority should be given to irrigation over production of
power: fourthly, whether more diversion of the
Krishna waters outside the Krishna basin should be
permitted; fifthly, how and on what basis the allocations for
16
existing and future development of the concerned States
should be made; sixthly, whether any direction for the
release of water or for extension of irrigation facilities from
any project in any State should be made for the benefit of
another State under section 108(2) of the States
Reorganisation Act: seventhly, whether any restrictions
should be imposed on the uses of any State; eighthly,
whether the allocations
should be subject to review or modification; and
ninthly, what machinery, if any, should be set up to
make available and regulate the allocation of water to
the States or otherwise to implement the decision of
the Tribunal.
With regard to the Tungabhadra, a tributary of the
Krishna, there are a number of specific points of
dispute; first, whether the agreements of 1892, 1933, June
1944 and July 1944 are valid or subsisting; secondly,
whether any directions should be given regarding the
release of waters from the Tungabhadra dam; thirdly,
whether any directions should be given regarding the
control and administration of the Tungabhadra dam and
reservoir and other works; and fourthly, whether Andhra
Pradesh is entitled to any share in the power generated in
the power house at Munirabad.
Finally, it is necessary to determine what reliefs
should be given to the parties.
.Issues.—Issues were raised on the 8th January, 17
1970. They were amended from time to time and
were finally settled on the 14th April, 1971. The
issues as finall y settled are as follows:—
I. Was there any concluded agreement regarding
allocation of the waters of the river Krishna as
alleged ? Was the agreement valid and enforceable ? Is
it still subsisting and operative and binding upon the
States concerned in the present reference ? If so, with
what effect ? Is there any breach of the agreement as
alleged ?
Sub-Issues
(1) Was there a concluded agreement as alleged?
Was the agreement ratified, acted upon and
treated as binding by the States concerned ?
(2) Was the agreement in conformity with Arti
cle 299 of the Constitution? Was it within
the purview of the article ?
(3) Was the agreement inequitable or arbitrary
or based on inadequate data ? If so, with
what effect ?
(4) Did the agreement on its true construction
allocate waters for specific projects ? Have
some of the projects been abandoned ? If 18
so, has the agreement become void ?
(5) Has the agreement ceased to be operative
on the reorganisation of the States ?
(6) If the agreement is binding, what realloca-
tion of waters, if any, should be made, in
view of the reorganisation of States ?
(7) Is there any breach of the agreement as
alleged by Andhra ?
 6
(8) Is the validity of the agreement dependent
upon the validity of the Godavari agreement.
II What diretions, if any, should be given for the
equitable apportionment of the beneficial use of the
Waters of the Krishna river and the river valley ?
Sub-Issues
(1) On what basis should the available waters
be determined ?
(2) How and on what basis should the equitable
apportionment be made ?
(3) What projects and works in operation or
under construction, if any, should be pro
tected and/or permitted ? if so, to what
extent ?
19 (4) Should diversion or further diversion of the
waters outside the Krishna drainage basin
be protected and/or permitted ? If so, to
what extent and with what safe guards ?
How is the drainage basin to be defined ?
(5) Should any preference or priority be given to
irrigation over production of power ?
(6) Has any State any alternative means of
satisfying its needs? If so, with what effect ?
(7) Is the legitimate interest of any State affec
ted or likely to be affected prejudicially by
the aggregate utilisation and requirements of
any other State ?
(8) What machinery, if any, should be set up to
make available and regulate the allocations
of waters, if any, to the States concerned
or otherwise to implement the decision of
the Tribunal.
III Is the Agreement of July, 1944 valid and
subsisting and, if so, with what effect ? Was it invalid
as Bombay, Sangli and Hyderabad were not parties
to it? Was it rendered ineffective by the Supplemen
tal Agreement of 1945? Did it survive on the merger
20 of the Princely State of Mysore in the Republic of
India? Had it ceased to be operative on the reorgani
sation of States ?
IV Are the Agreements of 1892 and 1933 so far
as they relate to river Krishna and its tributaries sub-
sisting and, if so with what effect? Did they survive
On the merger of the Princely State of Mysore in the
Republic of India? Have they ceased to be operative on
the reorgnisation of States?
IV (A). Did the agreement of June, 1944 survive on
the —
(i) coming into force of the Indian Indepen-
dence Act;
(ii) coming into force of the Constitution of
India ; and
(iii) merger of the princely State of Hyderabad in
the Republic of India ?
Has the agreement ceased to be operati ve on the
reorganisation of States ?
IV(B). (a) Should an y directi on s be gi ven
for the release of waters from the Tunga-
bhadra Dam —
(i) for the benefit of the Kurnool Cuddapah
canal;
(ii) for the benefit of the Rajolibunda Diver
sion Scheme ; and
(iii) by way of contribution to the Kri shna
river ?
(b) Should any directions be given for the 21
vesting of the control and administration in
the Tungabhadra Board of —
(i) the Tungabhadra Darn and the Reservoir
and the main canal on the left side ;
(ii) the Rajolibunda Headworks and the common
canals within Mysore State limits ; and
(iii) the Power House at Munirabad ? Has the
Tribunal any power to give such directions?
(c) Is Andhra Pradesh entitled to a share in the
power generated at the Power House at
Munirabad ?
(d) Is the claim of Andhra Pradesh for a share
in the benefits of the power generated at
Munirabad Power House and/or for the
vesting of the control and administration of
the said Power House in the Tungabhadra
Board a water dispute within the meaning
of the Inter-St ate Water Disputes Act ?
V. Should any directions be given for release of
waters —
(a) by Maharashtra for the benefit of Mysore
from (i) storage dam at Ajra and
 7
(ii) Koyna Valley Irrigation-cum-Hydro-
Electric Project;
22 (b) by Mysore for the benefit of Andhra pra-desh
from (i) Upper Krishna Project; (ii)
Tungabhadra Left Bank Canal Project and (iii)
Bhima Project.
VI. Is it possible to divert waters from the river
Godavari to the river Krishna ? Should such diversion
be made and, if so, when by whom, in what manner
and at whose cost ? Is the Tribunal competent to
adjudicate on these questions ?
VII. To what relief are the parties entitled ?
Exhibits and Documents.—The parties filed
numerous exhibits. Most of the exhibits may be found
in bound volumes (APDK volumes I to XII, MRDK
Volumes I to XIV, MYDK Volumes I to XXII,
CWPC(K) Volumes I to XXXIV, MIP(K) Volumes I and
II, PC(K) Volume I, APPK Volumes I to XXXVI,
MRPK Volumes I to XXXIII and MYPK Volumes I to
XIV.
Witnesses.—The State of Maharashtra called K. K.
Framji, Consulting Engineer, as an expert witness on the
subjects of model experiments, sub-basin yields, return flows
and carryover studies generally and with particular reference
to Srisailam and Nagarjunasagar storage reservoirs. The State
of Mysore called B. C. Angadi, Chief Engineer, P.W.D., as an
expert witness regarding carryover studies in the Krishna
23 Valley. The State of Andhra Pradesh called U. V.
Srinivasa Rao, a photographer, to prove certain
photographs of the Vijayawada anicut, M. Sivaramaiah,
Executive Engineer, to prove the custody of a file and
drawing and the conditions of river flow at
Vijayawada, M. V. R. Prasad, an assistant, to prove the
proper custody of certain documents and drawings
relating to the Vijayawada anicut, Y. Jagannadha Rao,
retired Assistant Engineer, to prove a photograph and the
physical features of the anicut, M. Jaffer Ali, retired Chief
Engineer, on the subject of carryover studies particularly with
reference to Nagarjunasagar and Srisailam reservoirs and
Professor J. V. Rao as an expert witness on the subject of
model experiments.
1 M I & P/73—3
Tour.—The Tribunal visited various places in the Krishna
basin to study the local conditions and needs and to see
irrigation and power projects, the sites of projects under
construction or under contemplation and also certain
research stations. Particulars of the tour are given in
Appendix "T" to this Report.
Assessors.—When the hearing of the case started, Counsel
for all the States jointly requested us not to appoint any
assessors. On the 15th September, 1969 ; Counsel for all the.
States stated that they "desire that the Tribunal need not
appoint any assessor or assessors". Again, on the 7th
August, 1970, all the States jointly stated that "The States of
Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mysore, Madhya Pradesh 24
and Orissa adhere to their submission that no assessors
should be appointed by the Hon'ble Tribunal." Counsel
for all the States assured us that their engineers and technical
representatives would jointly give us the fullest assistance
with regard to all scientific and technical matters. In these
circumstances, we refrained from exercising our powers of
appointing assesors under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the
Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.
Units of Measurement.—The old records used the British
system of units, the new records have mostly used the
metric system of units and the data supplied by the parties
have used both system of units. As we have to refer to the
old as also the new records and the data supplied by the
parties, both the systems have to be necessarily used in
this judgment. The parties have supplied an agreed
conversion table which is included as Appendix "A" to
this Report.
Alteration of name of the State of Mysore.—The Mysore
State (Alteration of name) Act, 1973 provides for
alteration of name of the State of Mysore. Under Section 2
of the Act, with effect from the1st November, 1973, the
State of Mysore shall be known as the State of Karnataka.
Section 8 of the Act provides that, in pending legal
proceedings, the State of Karnataka shall be deemed to be
substituted for the State of Mysore.
 25 CHAPTER III ( 1)
The Krishna River and River Basin
Part—I—The Krishna River System
THE KRISHNA.—The Krishna is the second lar-gest
river in Peninsular India. It rises in the Maha-dev
range of the Western Ghats near Mahabaleshwar at an
altitude of 4,385 ft. above sea level. Rising in the
Ghats near the Arabian sea, the Krishna flows
through Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh
gathering water on its way from innumerable rivers,
streams or tributaries and drops into the Bay of Bengal.
From its source, the Krishna speeds south-wards skirting
the eastern spurs of the hills through the districts of
Satara, Sangli and Kolhapur in Maharashtra. After
passing the dam sites for the Krishna Project at Dhom
and Borkhal, the Krishna receives the waters of the
Venna on the right bank, 42 mil es from its source at
Mahuli near Satara city. Lower down, the river is
joined by the Urmodi and the Tarali on the right bank.
26
Flowing past the Khodshi weir from which the
Krishna canal takes off, the Krishna is joined on the right
bank by the Koyna of which the Wang is a tribut ary, at
mi le 85 at an elevation of 2,505 ft. Lower down,
the Krishna receives the waters of the Yerla from the
left About 135 miles from its source near Sangli, the
Krishna receives on the right bank the waters of the
Warna of which the Kadvi is a tributary. Near
Kurundvad, at about mile 156, the Krishna receives on
its right bank the united waters of the Panchaganga, that
is, the Kasari, the Kumbhi, the Bhogavathi, the Tulshi
and the Dhamni. At about mile 190, the Krishna is
j oined on the right bank by the Dudhganga of which
the Vedganga is a tributary. About 190 miles from
its source and at an altitude of about 1,750 ft., the
Krishna enters Mysore State. The river now has left the
heavy rainfall zone and turns east. In the run of 186
miles within Maharashtra, the bed fall is 14.06 ft. per
mile, the fall up to mile 85 being steeper at the rat e
of 22.1 ft. per mile.
After flowing for some distance in Mysore, the
Krishna is joined by the Agrani on the left bank, the
27 Ghataprabha on the right bank at mile 315 and the
Mal aprabh a on th e ri ght ban k at mil e 337. The
(1) Important data with regard to the rivers of the Krishna river system and the Krishna basin were agreed to by the
technical representatives and counsel of the States of Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh. The agreed data
were incorporated in separate sheets which were exhibited by consent of the parties see MRDK XI, XII, XIII, XIV.
8
junction of the Malaprabha is between Almatti and
Narayanpur, the dam sites of the Upper Krishna Project.
At Jaldurga falls below Narayanpur, the Krishna drops
about 400 ft. in about 3 miles from the table land of
the Deccan proper to the alluvial lands of Raichur
District. Lower down, the Krishna receives the waters
of the Don on the left bank and at about mile 490 the
waters of the Bhima on the left bank at an altitude of
1,125 ft. In the run of 300 miles within Mysore, the
bed fall is 2.12 ft. per mile.
After the confluence of the Bhima, the Krishna
forms the common boundary of Mysore and Andhra
Pradesh for 26 miles and then flows through Andhra
Pradesh.
About 545 miles from its source, the Krishna receives
the waters of the Peddavagu on its left bank, and at
about mile 570 near Kurnool the waters of the
Tungabhadra on the right bank. A short distance below its
junction with the Tungabhadra, the Krishna enters a deep
gorge 180 miles long and flows in a north easterly
direction in deep rocky channels, with a rapid fall
through the spurs of the Nallamalai range and other hills
past Srisailam dam site and Nagar-junasagar reservoir 28
before emerging into the plains of the Coromandal
coast at Pulichintala, 750 miles from its source at an
elevation of 120 ft. Between Kur-nool and Pulichintala,
the Krishna is joined by the Dindi on its left bank at
mile 681, Peddavagu II on its left bank at mile 696, the
Hallia at mile 704 and the Musi on its left bank at mile
726. Lower down, the Krishna is joined by the Palleru
on the left bank at mile 762 and the Muneru on the left
bank at mile 789 before reaching Vijayawada at about
mile 815. At Vijayawada the river flows through a gap,
three quarters of a mile wide, between low hills.
Beyond this point stretching away on both sides of the
river lies a wide alluvial plain known as the Krishna Delta.
The Delta is irrigated by canals taking off from the
Prakasham Barrage at Vijayawada. After Vijayawada,
the river continues in a single channel of great width for
another 40 miles when it seconds off to the left a branch
known as the Puligadda which forms
 9
the island of Divi. Thereafter, the main stream continues
for another 15 miles and after a total run of 870 miles it
breaks up into three mouths separated from one
another by two islands and joins the Bay of Bengal.
In a run of 358 miles within Andhra Pradesh, the bed
fall is 3 feet per mile.
29
During the monsoon season, the Krishna occasionally
swells into floods. In the highest known flood on the 7th
October, 1903, the recorded discharge at Vijayawada was
10,60,880 cusecs,(2) a quantity more than twice the
maximum discharge of the Nile. During the dry weather,
the minimum discharge has fallen as low as 100 cusecs.
The distinctive features of the greater part of the river are
low water level during dry weather, narrow and rocky bed
and great flood lift sometimes as much as 100 ft. Increasing
upstream utilisation will delay the floods and reduce their
intensity. The major tributaries fall into the river in the
upper two-thirds of its length.
The rivers Bhima and Tungabhadra, tributaries of the
Krishna, are themselves major Inter-State rivers.
30
THE BHIMA.—The Bhima rises in the Western Ghats
at Bhimashanker in Poona District of Maharashtra at an
altitude of about 3,100 ft. The river flows for a total
length of 535 miles through Maharashtra, Mysore and
Andhra Pradesh and falls into the Krishna 3 miles above
Krishna Railway Station at an altitude of about 1,125 ft.
During its passage through Maharashtra, the Bhima is
joined by the Indrayani of which the Kudali is a tributary
on the right bank, and the Vel on the left bank. The
Bhima receives the waters of the Mula-mutha on the right
bank near Poona about 85 miles from its source, at an
elevation of 1,700 ft. In 85 miles, the bed fall is 16.4 ft.
per mile. Lower down, the Bhima is joined by the Ghod of
which the Mina, the Kukadi and the Hanga are
tributaries, at about mile 103 on the left bank at an
elevation of about 1,685 ft. The fall between miles 85
and 103 is 0.82 ft. per mile. The Bhima passes the
Ujjani dam site at mile 200 at an elevation of 1,503 ft.
The fall between miles 103 and 200 is 1.88 ft. per mile.
The river is joined at mile 223 on the right bank by the
Nira of which the Karha is a tributary and then by the
Man on the right bank. At mile 303, the elevation of the
river is about 1,400 ft. For a stretch
(2) The Lower Krishna Project Report 1952 p. 35 (APPK X p. 35); The Nandikonda Project Report 1954 p. 14 APPK
I p. 14). On the basis of the Poondi Model experiment, the recorded discharge at Vijayawada on 7-10-1903 was
stated to be 11,3,901 cusecs in Kistna Pennar Project Report (1951 Scheme) Vol. I pp. 2, 17 (APPK II pp, 2,17) and
in the Khosla Committee Report, p. 13. The discrepancy m the data of the maximum discharge at Vijayawada is
discussed in the Report of the COPP Irrigation and Power Team on Nagarjunasagar Project, 1960, pp, 139-145,
155-157.
of 46 miles between miles 303 to 349 the Bhima 31
forms the boundary between Maharashtra and Mysore
Within this stretch, the Bhima receives the waters of the
Sina on the left bank. The fall between miles 200 and
303 is 1 ft. per mile.
After mile 349, the river Bhima flows through
Mysore for 186 miles. In Mysore, the river is joined
by the Dodahalla (Nargel), the Bor, the Bori, the
Amarja and the Kagna of which the Bennithora and
Mullamari are tributaries. In the last 6 miles, the
Bhima forms the common boundary between Andhra
Pradesh and Mysore. The river joins the Krishna
after a run of 535 miles. The fall between miles 303 and
535 is 1.19 ft. per mile.
THE TUNGABHADRA.—The river Tungabhadra is
formed by the confluence of two powerful streams— the
Tunga on the left and the Bhadra on the right. The two
streams rise in the Western Ghats on the hill known
as Varaha Parbata at Gangamula within Mysore State at
an elevation of about 3,930 ft. to the north of the ridge
separating the Krishna and the Cauvery basins. The
Malnad region, through which the Tunga and the
Bhadra flow, has rich and well developed forest
resources. The Tunga runs northeast beyond Sringeri,
takes a sharp turn north-west to Tirthahalli and then
flows north-east past Ganjnoor, the site of the Tunga anicut 32
near Shimoga town. The Bhadra runs east to the western
base of the Baba Budan Range near Mugundi and then
north past Lakkavalli and Bhadravathi. The Tunga,
after a run of 92 miles, and the Bhadra, after a run of 111
miles, unite at Kudali at an elevation of 2,000 ft. The
bed falls of the Tunga and the Bhadra from their
sources up to Kudali are 21 ft. and 17.38 ft. per mile res-
pectively.
Below the junction of the Tunga and the Bhadra, the
river takes the name Tungabhadra, the fabled Pampa of
the Ancients. The river Tungabhadra flows north for some
distance, is joined by the Kumudwathi on the left and the
Haridra on the right and at mile 100 by the Varada
swollen by the waters of the Dharma at an elevation
of 1,670 ft. The Tungabhadra then runs north-east, is
joined by the Chikka Hagari, and cuts through the
Sandur range of hills at Mallapuram where the landscape
is dominated by the Tungabhadra dam. The dam site
at mile 165 is at an elevation of 1,483.5 ft. The fall
between Kudali
 10
and mile 165 is 3.13 ft. per mile. From Mallapuram, the
river flows swiftly past Hampi through the ruins of the
33 capital city of the mighty Vijayanagar Empire, and is
joined by the Vedavathi at mile 225. The Tungabhadra
forms the border between Mysore and Andhra Pradesh
between miles 237 and 273 where it receives the waters
of the Maskinala and flows past Rajolibunda anicut. The
elevation of the river at mile 237 is 1,120 ft. and at mile
273 is 995 ft. Between miles 165 and 237 the fall is 5.04
ft. per mile and between miles 237 and 273 the fall is
3.47 ft. per mile. In Andhra Pradesh the river is joined
by the Hindri and after passing Sunkesala anicut, it flows
into the Krishna beyond Kurnool at an elevation of 865
ft. after a run of 330 miles from the confluence of the
Tunga and the Bhadra. The fall between miles 273 and 330
is 2.28 ft. per mile. The river receives copious supply from
the highly wooded and hilly catchment of the Western
Ghats. Though it is classed as a perennial river, the
monsoon -flows are large, while the summer flows
dwindle to 100 or even 50 cusecs.
The Varada drains a large area of the Western Ghats
and its chief tributary is the Dharma.
THE GHATAPRABHA.—The Ghataprabha rises from
the Western Ghats in Maharashtra at an altitude of
2,900ft., flows eastwards for 37 miles through
Ratnagiri and Kolhapur Districts of Maharashtra, forms the
34
border between Maharashtra and Mysore for 5 miles and
then enters Mysore. Not far from the Mysore border are
Hidkal dam site and the Gokak falls about 200 ft. high. In
Mysore, the river flows for 134 miles through Belgaum
District past Bagalkot. After a run of 176 miles, the
river joins the Krishna on the right bank at Kudli Sangam
at an elevation of 1,640 ft., about 10 miles from Almatti.
Its principal tributaries are the Tamraparni, the
Hiranyakeshi and the Markandeya.
The Tamraparni rising in Maharashtra flows in
Maharashtra for 16 miles and after a run of another 16
miles in Mysore joins the Ghataprabha. The Hirayankeshi
rising at Amboli village in Ratnagiri District of
Maharashtra flows in Maharashtra for 39 miles, forms the
boundary between Maharashtra and Mysore for 4 miles
and after a run of 12 miles in Mysore joins the
Ghataprabha on the left bank. The Markandeya rising in
Maharashtra flows in Maharashtra for 5 miles and after a
run of 41 miles in Mysore joins the Ghataprabha on the
right bank.
THE MALAPRABHA.—The Malaprabha has its
source near the Chorla Ghats, a section of the Western
Ghats at an elevation of 2,600 ft. about 22miles
south-west of Belgaum in Mysore. The river flows east and 35
then north-east and joins the Krishna at Kapila-sangam in
Bijapur District at an elevation of 1,600 ft. about 190 miles
from its source. Near Manoli, the river passes through the
famous Peacock Gorge, the site of the Malaprabha dam now
under construction. The principal source of supply of the
river is about 20 miles length of the Western Ghats and a
small area east of it Its principal tributaries are the
Bennihalla, and the Hirehalla.
VEDAVATHI—The Vedavathi, also called the
Hagari, is formed by the union of the streams—the Veda
and the Avati originating in the Bababuda-nagiri range
of hills of the Western Ghats in Mysore State. The river
flows in Mysore, enters Andhra Pradesh near
Bhairavanithippa, re-enters Mysore and after a short run
forms the boundary between Andhra Pradesh and
Mysore. For the remainder of its course, the river flows
in Mysore until it joins the Tungabhadra on the right bank
after a run of 243 miles. The river runs for 182 miles in
Mysore, 45 miles in Andhra Pradesh and forms the
common boundary between Mysore and Andhra Pradesh
for 16 miles. Its principal tributaries are the Suvarna-
mukhi; the Chinna Hagari and the Peddavanka.
THE MUSI.—The Musi rises at an altitude of 2,168 ft. in 36
Medak District of Andhra Pradesh. It flows east, passes
through Hyderabad city, is joined by the Chinnamusi Nadi
and by the Aleru, turns south, is joined by the Paler and
drops into the Krishna near Wazirabad at an elevation of
about 200 ft. after a run of 166 miles.
THE PALLERU.—The Palleru, also known as the
Palair, rises in Warangal District, flows south, and after a
run of 95 miles joins the Krishna.
THE MUNERU.—The Muneru rises in Warangal
District, flows south, is joined by the Akeru and the Wyra
and drops into the Krishna after a run of 122 miles.
THE KOYNA.—The Koyna in Satara District of
Maharashtra is an important right bank tributary of the
Krishna river. Rising on the west side of the
Mahabaleshwar plateau the river runs in a north to south
direction for the first 40 miles and after Helwak village turns
east for the remaining 34 miles. The Koyna dam is located
upstream of Helwak village at mile 36 of the Koyna river.
The Koyna joins the Krishna lower down near Karad
town after a run of 74 miles. In the hot weather season, the
stream often dries up but the water stands in deep pools
through the driest year. During the rains, the river fills
up from bank to bank. 37
 11

Generally.—The heavy rainfall of the Western
Ghats is the main source of supply of the Krishna
river system. The Krishna basin drains a length of
about 428 miles of the Western Ghats, comprising 140
miles in Upper Krishna, 40 miles in Ghataprabha, 20
miles in Malaprabha, 100 miles in Upper Bhima and 128
miles in Tungabhadra sub-basins. The waters of the
river system find their outlet in the Bay of Bengal,
though they have their main source in the Ghats not
far from the Arabian sea.
The Western Ghats run almost parallel to the sea
coast at a distance of 50 to 100 miles (80.47 t o
160.93 km) from the sea. Precipitous on the western
side, they fall away more gradually to the east. The
heaviest rainfall occurs on the peak of the ridge, the
intensity of the rainfall rapidly decreasing as we go
eastwards. The rivers rise in the valleys close to the
Ghats which like the ridge of a roof divides the flow into
two parts, the smaller portion falling westwards into the
Arabian sea and the other flowing through rivers
eastwards to the Bay of Bengal.
All the rivers are under the influence of the southwest
monsoon. They are entirely rain fed. There is no perennial
snow in themountains to sustain them. Many of the 38
rivers having their source in the Western Ghats begin to
rise with the first good rains in June and during high
floods occasionally swell into raging torrents. From the
middle of October, the flow decreases rapidly. During
the dry weather, the discharges are very very low, but
as the rivers are fed by underground springs, they are
not completely dry.
In the non-Ghat areas, the rivers generally have flat
shallow valleys and run in deep channels which have
generally approached the base level of erosion. The river
courses are stable and well defined.
Inter-State rivers—The Inter-State rivers' of the
Krishna river system and their successive and common
lengths in the States of Maharashtra, Mysore and
39
Andhra Pradesh are given below:—

SI. Name of River LENGTH IN MILES

N
o, Maharash- Mysore Andhra Common Total
tra Pradesh length length
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Krishna . . . . . . . . 186 300 358 26 870
2. .
Ghataprabha . . . . . . . . 37 134 .. 5 176
3. .
Bhima . . . . . . . . 303 180 .. 52 535
4. Tungabhadra . . . . . . . . .. 237 57 36 330
5. .
Vedavathi (Hagari) . . . . . . . .. 182 45 16 243
6. Vedaganga . . . . . . . . 41 12 .. 2 55
7. Dudhganga . . . . . . . . 43 12 .. 8 63
8. Panchaganga . . . . . . . . 44 .. 2 46
9. Agrani . . . . . . . . 34 26 .. .. 60
10 Don . . . . . . . . 8 122 .. .. 130
11 Hirehalla (Krishna) . . . . . . . 2 22 .. .. 24
12 Markandeya (Ghataprabha) . . . . . . 5 41 .. .. 46
13 Tamraparni (Ghataprabha) . . . . . . 16 16 .. .. 32
14 Hiranyakeshi (Ghataprabha) . . . . . . 39 12 .. 4 55
15 Doddahalla (Bhima) . . . . . . . 30 6 .. .. 36
16 Bor Nala (Bhima) . . . . . . . 24 18 .. .. 42
17 Bori Nadi (Bhima) . . . . . . . 62 14 .. .. 76
18 Amarja (Bhima) . . . . . . . . 6 39 .. .. 45
19 Kagna (Bhima) . . . . . . . . 44 43 .. 87
20 Bennithora (Kagna) . . . . . . . 30 55 6 91
40 21 Suvarnamukhi . . . . . . . . 46 6 2 54
22 Chinna Hagari . . . . . . . . 80 18 .. 98
23 Peddavanka (Vedavathi) ) . . . . . . 15 14 .. 29
24 Peddavanka (Tungabhadra) . . . . . . 5 12 .. 17
 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25 Garchi Vanka (Tungabhadra) . . . . . . .. 15 20 .. 35
. Gonde Halla (Chinna Hagan)
26 . . . . . .. 21 3 .. 24
27 Dona Halla (Bor Nala) . . . . . . 12 6 .. .. 18
28 Katra (Bhima) . . . . . . . . 5 7 .. .. 12
29 Sar Nala (Kagna) . . . . . . . . 23 5 .. 28
.
List oj Streame : A table giving the names of the streams in the Krishna river system and their lengths is given in the enclosed
map-"
Part II—The Krishna River Basin K. 2. Middle Krishna.—The river Krishna, from its
41 confluence with the Dudhganga to its confluence with the
Locations.—The Krishna basin lies between latit u d e s Bhima; the sub-basin includes the direct catchment of the
1 3 ° 7 '/ N t o 1 9 ° 2 0 '/ N an d l o n gi t u d e s 73° 22'/E Krishna in this reach as well as of all its tributaries
to 81° 10'/E. It is roughly triangular in shape with its outfalling in this reach, except that of the Ghataprabha
base along the Western Ghats, and apex at Vijayawada. and of the Malaprabha (K. 3 and K. 4 below).
The basin extends over an area of 99,980 square miles K. 3. Ghataprabha.—The entire catchment of the
which is nearly 8 per cent of the total geographical area of
Ghataprabha from source to its confluence with the Krishna,
India.
including the Catchment area of the Hiran-yakeshi, the
Markandeya and other tributaries of the Ghataprabha.
Boundaries.—The Western Ghats, 7,000 to 2,000 ft. high K. 4. Malaprabha.—The river Malaprabha, from source
running parallel to the coast, form a continuous watershed on to its confluence with the Krishna; the sub-basin includes
the west. the entire catchment of the Malaprabha and of all its
On the north, the Balaghat and the Mahadeo ranges tributaries.
stretching forth from the eastern flank of the Western Ghats K. 5. Upper Bhima.—The river Bhima, from source to the
and the Anantagiri and other ranges of hills and ridges confluence with it of the Sina; the sub-basin includes the
separate the Krishna basin from the Godavari. catchment area of the Bhima in this reach as well as of all
its tributaries which fall into it in this reach including the
On the eastern side, the broken ranges of the Sina.
Eastern Ghats dissect the country and proceeding south- K. 6. Lower Bhima.—The lower part of the river Bhima 43
west leave broad flat tracts of land between the hills and from its confluence with the Sina to the point where the
the sea. Bhima falls into the Krishna; the sub-basin includes the direct
catchment of the lower part of the Bhima as well as of all
On the south, the Uravakonda and the Mitta-kondala its tributaries which fall into it in this reach.
ridges and the Erramalai hills separate the Krishna basin
from the Pennar basin and the Nallamalai and the K. 7. Lower Krishna.—The lower part of the river Krishna
Veligondla hills separate the Krishna basin from other from its confluence with the Bhima to the sea; the sub-
minor basins. Other ridges on the south separate the basin includes the direct catchment of the Krishna in this
Krishna basin from the Cauvery basin. reach and of all its tributaries which fall into it in this
reach, except the area covered by sub-basins K. 8 to K.I2
42 A map of the Krishna basin is appended to this described below.
report. K. 8. Tungabhadra.—This sub-basin includes the entire
catchment of the Tungabhadra and of all its tributaries,
Sub-basins.—The Krishna Basin may be divided (3) except that of the Vedavathi (K. 9 below)
into the following sub-basins :—
K. 9. Vedavathi.—The river Vedavathi, from source to
K. 1. Upper Krishna.—The river Krishna from source to its out-fall into the Tungabhadra; the sub-basin includes the
the confluence with it of the Dudhganga ; the sub-basin catchment area of the Vedavathi (also called Hagari in its
includes the catchment area of the river Krishna and of all upper reach) and of all its tributaries.
its tributaries which fall into the Krishna in this reach up to
and including the Dudhganga.
*See Volume IV of the Report.
(3) Report of the Krishna Godavari Commssion, pp. 22-
23.
 13

K. 10. Musi.—This sub-basin includes the entire
catchment of the Musi and of all its tributaries.
K. 11. Palleru.—This sub-basin includes the entire
catchment of the Palleru and of all its tributaries.
K. 12. Muneru.—This sub-basin includes the entire
catchment of the Muneru as well as of its tributaries.
44 Elevation.—A broad view of the elevation of the
sub-basins is presented in the following table:—
towards the east. Belts of country adjoining the Western
Ghats in the Upper Krishna, the Upper Bhima, the
Ghataprabha, the Malaprabha and the Tungabha-dra sub-
basins are hilly and highly undulating and covered with
dense and evergreen forests; the rest of these sub-basins
are flatter and less undulating. The cent-ral zone
comprising the Middle Krishna, the Lower Bhima and
parts of the Malaprabha and the Tunga-bhadra sub-
basins consists of undulating plains and broad flat valleys
interspersed with isolated ridges and quaint rocky
outcrops of hills. On the eastern side lie the Lower
Krishna, the Musi, the Palleru and the Muneru sub-basins
comprising the coastal plains, the Eastern Ghats and a
series of valleys partly covered with hills and dense
forests.

Sub-basin Elevation in
feet Political divisions, effect of reorganisation of States :
Since Independence, there were important political
K-l Upper Krishna changes affecting the Krishna basin. During 1947-48 the
Ghat area . . . . 4500 to 3000. Kolhapur, Deccan and Mysore Agency States having
Rest . . . . . 3000 to 2000. riparian interests in the Krishna basin were merged in the
. Provinces of Bombay and Madras. Before 1951, the four
K-2 Middle Krishna . . . 2000 to 1000. riparian States of Bombay, Mysore, Hyderabad and
. Madras had 40,487, 11,636 34,758 and 13,099 sq. miles
K-3 Ghataprabha . . . of territories respectively in the Kri shna basin. As from
Ghat area . . . . 4500 to 3000, Oct ober 1, 1953, the Andhra State was constituted with 46
.Rest . . . . . 3000 to 2000 the territories specified in section 3 of the Andhra
. State Act, 1953 and thereupon Madras ceased to be a
K-4 Malaprabha
riparian State. As from November 1, 1956 there was a
Ghat area . . . 3000 to 2000. general reorganisation of States and the new States of
Rest . . . . . 2000 to 1600. Andhra Pradesh, Mysore and Bombay were formed with
. the territories specified in sections 3, 7 and 8 of the States
K-5 Upper Bhima . . . . Reorganisation Act, 1956 while Hyderabad ceased to be
. Ghat area . . . . 4500 to 2000. a separate State. As a result of the reorganisation, the
Rest . . . . . 2000 to 1000. three States of Bombay, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh came
. to possess respectively 26,805, 43,734 and 29,441 sq.
K-6 Lower Bhima . . . . 2000 to 1000. miles of territories in the Krishna basin. In 1960, the
. State of Bombay bifurcated into the States of
K-7 Lower Krishna . . .
. Western
. Maharashtra and Gujarat and all the Krishna basin areas
Part . . . 2000 to 1000.
of the old Bombay State fell within the new State of
.Eastern Ghats . . . 3000 to 50.
Maharashtra.
Delta . . . . . 50 to 0.
.
K-8 Tungabhadra . . . . Before the reorganisation of States, the Krishna ran
. for 343 miles in Bombay, formed the common boundary
Ghat area . . . 3900 to 2000.
.Rest . . . . . . 2000 to 900. between Bombay and Hyderabad for 5 miles, ran for
. 222 miles in Hyderabad, formed the boundary between
K-9 Vedavathi . . . . 3000 to 1000. Hyderabad and Madras for 180 miles and ran for
.
K-10 Musi . . . . 2000 to 200. another 120 miles in Madras. Now, the Krishna runs for
. . 186 miles in Maharashtra, forms the boundary between
K-l1 Palleru . . . . . 1000 to 150
Maharashtra and Mysore for 4 miles, runs for 300
.
K-12 Muneru . . . . 1500 to 100. miles in Mysore, forms the boundary between Mysore
. . and Andhra Pradesh for 22 miles and then runs for
358 miles in Andhra Pradesh.
45 Topography.—The interior of the basin is a pla-
teau divided into a series of valleys sloping generally
 14

47 As a result of the reorganisation, the Ghataprabha Bombay and Hyderabad now lies in the States of
valley which formerly lay within Bombay State exclusively Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh. The
now lies within the States of Maharashtra and Mysore. Tungabhadra valley which lay within Mysore,
The Malaprabha Valley which lay within Bombay State Bombay, Hyderabad and Madras now lies within the
now lies within Mysore State. The Bhima Valley States of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh.
which formerly lay in the States of
State-wise distribution of sub-basin areas.—The distribution of the sub-basin areas in the three States is
given below:—

Area in square mites Percentag

e of
Sub-basin Mysore
Maharash- Andhra Krishna
Total
tra Pradesh basin
1 2 3 4 5 6
K-l Upper Krishna . . . . . . . 6,613 326 .. 6,939 6.97
K-2 . Middle Krishna . . . . . . . 536 6,243 .. 6,779 6.81
K-3 Ghataprabha . . . . . . . 776 2,633 .. 3,409 3.43
K-4 Malaprabha . . . . . . . .. 4,459 .. 4,459 4.48
K-5 Upper Bhima . . . . . . . 17,504 282 .. 17,786 17.85
K-6 Lower Bhima . . . . . . . 1,376 7,130 972 9,478 9.54
K-7 Lower Krishna . . . . . . . .. 650 13,298 13,948 13.53
K-8 Tungabhadra . . . . . . . .. 14,977 3,489 18,466 18.57
K-9 Vedavathi . . . . . . . . .. 7,034 2,074 9,108 9.16
K-10 Musi . . . . . . . . .. .. 4,329 4,329 4.35
K-ll Palleru . . . . . . . . .. .. 1,260 1,260 1.27
K-l 2 Muneru . . . . . . . .. .. 4,019 4,019 4.04
. .
26,805 43,734 29,441 99,980 100

48 District-wise Distribution of sub-basin areas.—The District-wise distribution of the sub-basin areas is given below:—
MAHARASHTRA

District Region Area within Krishna Basin Normal -

Percentage Sub-basin Weighted
Sq. miles
of total annual
area of rainfall, of
District District in
inches
1 2 3 4 5 6
Poona . . . . . . . Western Maharashtra 5,978 99.1 K5 51.2
.
Sholapur . . . . . . —do.— 5,765 99.2 K5K6 23.6
Satara . . . . . . . — do.— 4,041 100 K1 K5 49.2
Sangli (South Satara) . . . . . — do.— 3,297 100 K1K2K5 29.5
Kolhapur . . . . . . — do.— 2,929 91.4 K1K3 78.7
Ahmednagar . . . . . . — do.— 2,386 36.2 K5 25.6
Ratnagiri . . . . . . —do.— 45 0.9 K3 118.1
Osmanabad . . . . . . Marathawada 1,759 31.8 K5K6 33.5
Bhir . . . . . . . —do.— 605 14.2 K5 27.6
.
26,805
MYSORE
Chitradurga . . . . . . Old Mysore 4,185 100 K8K9 21.7
.
Shimoga . . . . . . -d o. — 3,025 74.4 K8 78.7
Chikmagalur . . . . . . — do.- 2,397 86 K8K9 88.6
.
 15

1 2 3 4 5 6

Tumkur . . . . . . Old Mysore 1,520 37.1 K9 27.6

. .
Hassan . . . . . . — do— 509 19.3 K9 39.4
Bellary . . . . . . Rayalaseema 3,825 100 K8K9 22.6
49 .
Bijapur
. . . . . . . Bombay Karnataka 6,590 100 K2K3K4 K5K6 23.6
Belgaum . . . . . . . —do— 4,623 90.8 K1K2K3 K4 39.4
Dharwar . . . . . . — do — 4,587 86.5 K4K8 27.6
Kanara . . . . . . —do— 246 6.2 K8 108.3
Gulbarga . . . . . . . Hyderabad Karnataka 6,348 100 K2K6K7 26.6
Raichur . . . . . . — do.— 5,508 100 K7K8K2 K4 23.6
Bidar . . . . . . — do.— 371 17.9 K6 35.4
. .
43,734
ANDHRA
PRADESH
Mahboobnagar . . . . . . Telangana 6,833 100 K6K7K8K10 27.6
.Nalgonda . . . . . . . — do.— 5,351 100 K 7 K10 K 11 28.5
Hyderabad . . . . . . . — do. — 2,860 98.5 K6K7K10 27.6
Warangal . . . . . . . —do.— 2,530 47.5 K 1 0K1 1 K1 2 41.3
Khammam . . . . . . . — do. — 2,001 43.5 K 11 K 1 2 K 7 41.3
Medak . . . . . . . —do—. 578 15.2 K6K10 33.5
Karimnagar . . . . . . — do.— 14 0.3 Kl2 38.4
Kurnool . . . . . . . Andhra Rayalaseema 3,933 42 .4 K7K8K9 26.6
Guntur . . . . . . . Andhra 2,110 36.4 K7 32.5
Krishna . . . . . . . Andhra 1,488 42.5 K 11 K12 K7 37.4
Anantpur . . . . . . . Andhra Rayalseema 1,743 23.6 K9 21.7
.
29,441
50 Andhra and Telangana regions of Andhra Pradesh.—The Basin population.— On the basis of the 1971 census and 51
distribution of Krishna Basin area in the Andhra and the percentages of the area of each district within the basin
Telangana regions of Andhra Pradesh is given below:— to the district as a whole, the total population in the basin is
about 38.71 million. The State-wise distribution is shown
in the Table below: —
V Krishna Drainage
Name of District Basin Population in the Krishna Basin—Statewise:
Area
(In sq. Miles)
Andhra Telangan
Region a Region Sl.
State Population
No.
1 2 3 1. Andhra Pradesh 12.06 Million
Anantapur . . . . 1,743 2. Maharashtra 12.15 Million
Guntur (including areas of
Prakasam District) . . 2,110 3. Mysore 14.05 Million
Hyderabad . . . . 2,860
Karimnagar . . . . 14 38.71 Million
Khammam . . . . 2,001
Krishna . . . . 1,488 There are sixteen main cities in the basin which have a
Kurnool (including areas of population of more than one lakh each. They are
Prakasam District) . . 3,933 Hyderabad, Vijayawada and Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh;
Mahboobnagar . . . 6,833 Ahmednagar, Poona, Sholapur, Sangli and Kolhapur in
Medak . . . . 578 Maharashtra and Hubli-Dharwar, Davan-gere, Bijapur,
Nalgonda . . . . 5,351
Shimoga, Bhadrawathi, Bellary, Gulbarga and Belgaum in
Warangal . . . . 2,530
Mysore. The average density of population in the basin is
.
TOTAL . . . 9,274 20,167 149 persons per sq. km. The density varies from region to
. region within the basin. The coastal plain is generally
29,441 sq. miles.
densely populated while the hilly areas have a relatively low
1 M I & P/73-4 density.
 16
In 1971, the most densely populated district of Hyderabad
52 had 362 persons per sq. km. while the district of North
Kanara with 83 persons per sq. km. stood at the other
extreme.
75.8 per cent of the population in the basin live in rural
areas and the balance of 24.2 per cent in cities and towns.
The working force constitutes about 36.7 per cent of the
population. Nearly 37.6 per cent of the working force is
engaged as cultivators, 30.5 per cent as agricultural
labourers and the balance 31.9 per cent are employed in
mining, manufacturing and tertiary activities. Forests and
agriculture are the mainstay of the people.
Hydrologic cycle.—The constant circulation of water
from ocean to air and back again to the ocean with
temporary storages in life forms, fresh water bodies and
ground water is called the hydrologic cycle or the water
cycle. The water cycle is an intricate combination of
evaporation, transpiration, air mass movement, condensation,
rainfall, percolation, ground water storage and movement,
and run-off. The cycle has no beginning or end.
Rainfall.—Rainfall is the source of all water within the
Krishna basin. The dominant natural factor that affects
basically the life and economy of the people in the
Krishna basin is the rainfall and its regional and seasonal
distribution, amount and variability. The major part of the
rainfall is received during the southwest monsoon season.
South-west monsoon season.—At the end of May, when
53
the weather is at its hottest in India, the trade winds from
the south of the equator blow northwards into the Bay of
Bengal and the Arabian Sea; and are deflected inland as
south-westerly winds which give rise to the cool and humid
south-west monsoon. This humid current called the south-
west monsoon is frequently ushered in by cyclonic storms
either in the Bay of Bengal or the Arabian Sea with the
associated heavy rainfall.
The south-west monsoon bursts on the Kerala coast at
the beginning of June, gradually extends northwards and
spreads over most of India by the end of June.
The Arabian Sea current strikes the west coast of India
where it is obstructed by the continuous barrier of the
Western Ghats 2,000 to 7,000 ft. high. The
mountain barrier, by forcing ascent and consequent expansion
and cooling of the moisture-bearing winds, causes heavy
precipitation in the coastal districts, on the Ghats and within
a belt of a maximum width of 30 to 40 miles on their
leeward side. From this region of heavy rainfall and
evergreen and semi-evergreen forests, the monsoon current
bereft of most of its moisture advances eastwards over an
extensive rainshadow region of sparse rainfall
The south-west monsoon season during June to
September contributes about 73 per cent of the annual
rainfall of the Krishna basin. Agriculture depends mainly
54
on the amount and distribution of rainfall during this
season. The months of June and July are crucial for Kharif
crops. The normal date of onset of the south-west
monsoon in the Krishna basin is between the 1st and the
10th of June. The arrival of the monsoon is a gradual
process with a period of transition spread over a week or
more and is marked by a sudden increase in rainfall.
During the monsoon season, heavy to moderate rains
alternate with breaks when there is little or no rain. The
strength of the monsoon current increases from June to July,
remains more or less steady in August, and begins to weaken
in the month of September. The normal date of withdrawal
of south-west monsoon in the Krishna basin is between the
1st October and 15th November.
The character of the monsoon season is determined by
the dates of onset and cessation of the monsoon, the
monthly and seasonal rainfall, the intensity of the rain, the
number of rainy days and the frequency and duration of dry
spells.
Other rainy seasons.—The other rainy seasons are not as
well defined and as well spread as the southwest monsoon
season.
By the middle of October, the retreating south-east
monsoon curves round under the influence of the belt of low
pressure in the centre of the Bay of Bengal and is deflected
towards the Peninsula from the northeast. This current
which is usually called the northeast monsoon causes
occasional showers, the amount of rainfal decreasing 55
from the coast towards the interior. During October and
November, cyclonic storms from the Bay of Bengal
bring heavy rain to the Coromondal coast. The season
October to December contributes about 17 per cent of the
normal annual rainfall of the Krishna basin.
 17

There is little rain during the winter season in January
and February. During the hot weather season from March to
May, particularly during April and May, local
thnuderstorms bring welcome showers in some regions. The
winter and hot weather seasons contribute about 1 per cent
and 9 per cent respectively of the normal annual rainfall
of the Krishna basin.
Water year.—A water year is a continuous twelve
month period during which a complete annual stream
flow cycle occurs and which is selected for water accounts
and data of steam flow( 4 ). Water year usually starts
when ground and surface storage are both reduced to the
minimum(5). The parties agree that in the Krishna basin,
for all purposes, the water year commences from the 1st
of June and ends on the 31st of May of every year.
Sub-basin-wise rainfall.—The seasonal and annual
weighted rainfall in different sub-basins are shown in the
following table:— 56

SEASONAL AND ANNUAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE RAINFALL

Rainfall (millimetres)
Sub-basin Jan. — Mar. — June — Oct.— Annua Regional variation of
Feb. May. Sept. Dec. l annual rainfall (millimetres)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Upper Krishna 5 65 1,286 152 1,508 In l arge part 3000 to
K.1 1000, in Western end more
than 3000 and on the east of
the line joining Kolhapur
and Satara 1000 to 600.
Middle Krishna . . . . . 7 62 366 130 565 600 and less.
K.2
Ghataprabha . . . . . 5 92 671 153 921 Ghat area 3500 to 1000 non-
K.3 Ghat area less than 600.
Malaprabha . . . . . 4 93 431 147 675 Gh at area 1000 or more;
K.4 Rest less than 700 with
some area less than 600.
Upper Bhima . . . . . 8 36 527 105 676 Western zone Ghat area
K.5 3000 to 1000 Middle Zone
400 to 600 Eastern zone
600 to 800.
Lower Bhima . . . . . 12 51 499 99 661 600 to 800, with some
K.6 areas less than 600.
Lower Krishna . . . . . 12 60 508 141 721 Western end 600 Eastern end
K.7 1000.
Tungabhadra . . . . . 8 95 622 159 884 4000 to 500.
K.8
Vedavathi . . . . . 9 103 288 168 568 700 to 500 and less.
K.9
Musi . . . . . 14 65 546 124 749 700 to 830
K.10
Palleru . . . . . 14 55 605 136 810 770 to 880
K. ll
Muneru . . . . . 19 78 723 134 954 800 to 1050
K.12

Krishna basin . . . . . 9 69 570 136 784

(4) See Multi-lingual Dictionary on Irrigation and Drainage published by the International Commission on Irrigation
and Drainage
1967, p. 70. Serial No. 1137; MRG VI, pp. 14, 42.
(5) Ven Te Chow, Hand book of Applied Hydrology (1967), pp. 8-12,
15-41.
 18

57 Rainfall distribution.—Rainfall distribution in the basin
is mainly influenced by the physical features of the terrain.
The Western Ghats and a small belt of adjoining country of
varying width receive the highest amount of rainfall. A large
area to the east of the Western Ghats is a rainshadow region
having rainfall below 600 mm. East of the rainshadow
zone, the rainfall gradually rises and increases to about
1,050 mm.
Variability of rainfall.—The monthly seasonal and annual
rainfall of the Krishna basin varies from year to year. The
co-efficient of variability (that is, standard deviation
x 100÷ arithmetic mean) is an
important statistical measure of variation. The available
material(6) indicates that the co-efficient of variability of
the annual rainfall ranges from 20 to 35 per cent. For
season June to Sept ember the range is between 20 to
over 40 per cent, for season October to December between
50 to about 100 per cent, and for season March to May
between 50 to 100 per cent. In the eastern third of the
basin, the co-efficient of variability is between 20 to 30 per
cent during June to September.
The following table shows the areas (in square miles) of the 58
three States in the Krishna basin for different ranges of co-
efficient of variability of rainfall:—

Andhra
Mysore Maharashtra
Pradesh
1 2 3 4 5
Annual . . . . . More than 20% 40,045 25,777 29,441
. More than 25% 33,504 20,986 12,171
More than 30% 12,903 11,309 947
June-Sept. . . . . . More than 20% 43,057 26,01 29,441
. More than 30% 29,635 2
20,383 12,367
More than 40% 5,565 1,606 1,340
Oct.-Dec . . . . . More than 50% 41,528 26,80 29,441
. More than 60% 30,696 026,00 27,851
More than 80% 1,248 5,708 Nil
More than 100% Nil 723 Nil

The monthly rainfall variation is generally higher than

the seasonal variation. Low total rainfall and high Minimum Maximum
variability go hand in hand. April 22°C (72°F) to 35°C (95°F)
26°C (79°F) to 40°C(104°F)
Variability of rainfall creates the greatest drought July 20°C (68°F) to 27°C(81°F)to
hazards. Except in areas of abundant rainfall or assured 26°C (79°F) 33°C(91°F)
irrigation, large deficiencies in the normal rainfall are October 20°C (68°F) to 30°C (86°F)
likely to cause partial or complete failure of crops. Within 23 °C (74°F)
the Krishna basin, there are exceptionally insecure regions
59 of low rainfall and large variability of precipitation, where, The Ghat areas, because of their high altitude, have a
at frequent intervals, drought causing partial or complete comparatively lower temperature. The non-Ghat areas are
failure of crops and scarcity conditions prevail. mostly regions of hot summers and warm winters. The
range of daily maximum and minimum temperature is less
Climate.—The Krishna basin has a monsoon tropical
near the coastal regions because of their proximity to the sea.
climate.
During summer months, the central regions have the
Temperature.—The mean annual temperature of the basin highest maximum daily temperature.
varies from 24°C (75°F) in the Western Ghats to 29.4°C Humidity.—Except during the rainy season, humidity is
(85°F) on the east-coast. The range of mean daily low in most parts of the basin.
temperature during representative winter, summer, monsoon
and post-monsoon months is shown in the following table Evaporation.—In most parts of the Krishna basin, because 60
.— of the high temperature and low humidity, evaporation from a
free water surface, such as, river channels, canals and
reservoirs is very high. Some idea of the mean potential
Minimum Maximum evaporation, that is, evaporation if a free water surface
15°C (59 °F) were available, may
January 30°C (86°F)
to 18°C(64°F)

(6) Rainfall variability of Krishna and Godavari Basins issued by the Indian Meteorological Department, March, 1970.
 19

be gathered from the following figures given in the Krishna

Godavari Commission Report:—
Adequacy of rainfall for meeting the water needs of
plants is judged by comparing the rainfall received with the
Name of Sub-basin Mean Annual potential potential evapo-transpiration, taking also into consideration
evaporation in millimetres the soil characteristics of the area, particularly its water
holding capacity.
Maxi- Mini- Mean Arid and semi-arid regions.—Arid and semi-arid regions
mum mum are areas where rainfall cannot satisfy a large portion of the
evapo-transpiration needs. East of the Western Ghats, there
1 2 3 4 are extensive semi-arid regions and regions where 62
Kl Upper Krishna . 2,540 1,088 1,814 conditions close to aridity prevail. All arid and semi-arid
.K2 Middle Krishna . regions are susceptible to drought (8).
3,493 2,223 2,858
K3 Ghataprabha . 3,015 1,088 2,052 The Irrigation Commission(9) 1972 observed that arid
K4 Malaprabha . . 3,175 1,088 2,540 regions are areas where rainfall meets one-third or less of
K5 Upper Bhima . 3,810 2,223 3,017 evapo-transpiration needs and semi-arid regions are areas
K6 Lower Bhima . .. .. 3,810 where rainfall meets one-third to two-third of evapo-
K7 Lower Krishna . .. .. 2,540 transpiration needs.
K8 Tungabhadra . .. .. 2,540
Scarcity areas.—The State Governments suggest different
.
K9 Vedavathi . .. .. 2,540
tests for defining scarcity areas. Maharashtra consi ders that
K10 Musi . . . .. .. 2,800
Kll Palleru . . .. .. 2,540 scarcit y areas are areas ha vi n g (i ) an nu al rai n fal l
K12 Muneru . . .. .. 2,235 o f l ess t han 1 9. 7 i n ch es (500 mm), (ii) 75 per cent
. dependable rainfall of less than 5 to 6 inches during
Except during the monsoon season, June to September, September-October, (iii) co-efficient of variability of
the normal potential evaporation is in excess of the normal annual rainfall of more than 30 per cent, (iv) co-efficient
61 rainfall and for some stations, such as, Sholapur, Gulbarga, of variability of September-October rainfall of more than 45
Raichur and Kurnool this excess persists during the per cent(10).
monsoon season. Mysore suggests that scarcity areas are areas which (i)
receive less than 15.8 inches (400mm) normal rainfall
Evapo-transpiration.—Equally high is the evapo- during June-September, (ii) less than 5.9 inches (150mm)
transpiration, that is, the quantity of water transpired by normal rainfall during October-December, (iii) have co- 63
plants and evaporated from soils (7). The annual potential
efficient of variability of June-September, rainfall of more
evapo-transpiration, that is, the annual evapo-transpiration
from an extensive vegetative cover if an unlimited supply of than 3 per cent, (iv) are arid and semi-arid areas according
water were available, ranges from 1,600 to 1,800 to a map prepared by the Central Arid Zone Research
millimetres in the Krishna basin. In some parts of the Institute Jodhpur, (v) have less than 20 or 30 rainy
basin, it is even more than 1,800 millimetres These days in June-September and/or (vi) have high suspensions
figures give a fair idea of the water need of plants. In of land revenue (11).
most parts of the basin, except during the monsoon season,
the monthly precipitation is less than the monthly potential Andhra Pradesh suggests that scarcity areas are areas,
evapo-transpiration and there is moisture deficiency. As which have less than 30 inches of average annual rainfall
and when the soil moisture within the root zone of plants with high frequency of deficiency of annual rainfall from
is depleted, there is need for irrigation to sustain plant life. average annual rainfall(12).

(7) The rate of evapo-transpiration is controlled by meteorological and radiation factors. See Henry Olivier, Water
Resources Engineering, 1972, pp. 25-31.
(8) Report of the Indian Irrigation Commission 1972 Vol. I, pp. 163-165 and Fig. 8.2; Map prepared by the
Central Arid Zone Research Institute Jodhpur showing aridity index and moisture index in the Krishna basin and
an Article in the Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics Vol. XIX June 1967; MYDK XX, pp. 13-
25; An Article by R.D. Dhir published in Reviews of Research on Arid Zone Hydrology. UNESCO 1953, p. 96
MY DK XVIII pp. 64-65.
(9) Report of the Irrigation Commission 1972 Vol. I p. 164, Fig. 8.2.
(10) MRK I pp. 156-160; MRK III p 184; MRK IV pp. 7,26.
(11) MYK I pp. 23-28 MYK III p.90 MYK IV p. 37.
(12) APK I p. 113
 20

All the States rely on the history of the occurrence of and particularly in several Taluks in the following
scarcity and famines in areas within their respective districts:—
territories.
In Maharashtra Poona, Sholapur, Satara, Sangli, Ah-
The underlying assumption of all these tests is that scarcity mednagar, Osmanabad and Bhir
areas are areas of low and uncertain rainfall, which districts.
frequently suffer from droughts causing partial or complete In Mysore Bijapur, Bellary, Raichur, Dharwar,
failure of crops and where consequently distress and scarcity Gulbarga, Chitradurga and Tum-
kur districts.
conditions prevail at frequent intervals. We may observe
that drought or scarcity areas are areas where large Mahboobnagar,
In Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, Nalgonda,
Kurn o ol and
deficiencies of annual rainfall occur frequently. A n ant p ur di s tricts.
64 14 65
The materials on the record( 13) indicate that drought The Indian Irrigation Commission( ) 1901 said that a
and scarcity conditions have frequently occurred in rainfall deficiency of 25 per cent would be likely to
66
extensive areas within the Krishna basin cause some injury and a deficiency of 40 per cent would
generally cause severe injury, and that the former may
ce called a dry year and the later a year of severe
drought.

(13) Report of the Indian Irrigation Commission 1901—1903, Part I p. 17; Report of the Krishna Godavari
Commission, pp. 33, 101—108; Report of the Fact-Finding Committee for survey of scarcity areas in Bombay
State 1960, Vol. I pp. 13-14; APDK X pp. 1-3; Report of the Committee to go into the availability of Krishna
basin for utilisation in Mysore State; MYDK II pp.
420—457.

Report of the Central Team visiting drought affected areas of Mysore 1968 Planning Commission, MYDK
XVIII pp.35-51.

Report of Central Team visiting drought affected areas of Andhra Pradesh 1968 Planning Commission, APDK
II pp.30—44.

Report of a tour of scarcity areas in Mysore by a team of officers led by S.V. Ramamurthy, Adviser, Planning
Commission, MYDK XVIII pp. 2—3.
Scheme for development of backward areas in Mysore State 1964, MYDK XVIII p. 1.
Mysore State Gazetteer, Gulbarga district 1966 p. 136, MYDK IV p. 39.
Mysore State Gazetteer, Chitradurga district 1967 p. 151, MYDK IV p. 40.
Bombay State Gazetteer Dharwar District 1955 pp. 356—359, MYDK IV pp. 41—46.
Mysore State Gazetteer Tumkur District 1969 pp. 167—168, MYDK IV p. 47.
Mysore State Gazetteer, Bijapur District p. 164, MYDK XVIII pp. 58—61.
Statistical atlas of Bombay State (Provincial Part) 1950 pp. 131—133, 145—147 published by the Bureau of
Economics and
Statistics, Bombay Government, MYDK IV pp. 19—29.
Census of India 1951, Vol. I Parts IA and IB pp. 267—270 MYDK XVIII pp. 4—9.
Imperial Gazetteer of India—Provincial series Hyderabad State 1909 pp. 48—49, 246—275, MYDK IV pp. 17—18
MYDK III pp. 2—4.

Gazetteer of Bellary district pp. 121—148, MYDK IV. pp. 48—50.

Gazetteer of Bombay Presidency (Vol. XXI1IB) Bijapur and Jath Table XIII Famines, MYK I pp. 75 —76 Famine
Manual MYK I pp. 72-74.
H.F. Beale, Investigation report on protective irrigation works 1910 pp. 297, 315, MYDK IV pp. 64—65.

H.F. Beale Report on the surveys for protective irrigation works in the Deccan 1910 pp. 36, 37, MYDK IV pp. 66—69.

Journal of Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics Vol. XIX June 1967 No. 1 Growth and Inability in Indian

Agriculture by

S.R. Sen pp. 7—8, 12, 22, 23, 27, MYDK XX pp. 15—26.

Kanitkar, Sirur and Gokhale, Dry Farming in India pp. 8, 17, MYDK IV p. 51, MYDK XVIII p. 55.

(14) Report of the Indian Irrigation Commission 1901—1903 Part I p.4.

 21
The Irrigation Commission(15) 1972 observed:—
"We had also requested the India Meteorological
Department to assist us in laying down criteria
for the identification of drought areas, The
Department has defined drought as a situation
occurring in any area when the annual rainfall
is less than 75 per cent of the normal. It has
defined 'moderate drought' as obtaining
where the rainfall deficit is between 25 to 50
per cent and 'severe drought' where the
deficiency is above 50 per cent. Areas where
drought has occurred, as defined above, in 20
per cent of the years examined, are considered
'drought areas', and where it has occurred in
more than 40 per cent of years, as 'chronic
drought areas'."
Accepting the definition of drought given by the India
Meteorological Department, the Irrigation Commission
concluded that the drought areas were areas having 20 per
cent probability of rainfall departures of more than (—) 25
67 per cent from the normal and chronically drought affected
areas were areas having 40 per cent probability of rainfall
departure of more than (—) 25 per cent from the
normal. On this basis, the Irrigation Commission
identified extensive areas in Maharashtra, Mysore and
Andhra Pradesh as drought areas and some areas as
chronically drought affected areas. Most of the areas
susceptible to drought fall within the arid and semi-arid
zones.
Irrigation, to the extent it can be provided, will afford
protection to the scarcity areas. Schemes for irrigation of
such areas should receive special attention (16). One of
the objectives of the Fourth Plan in regard to new
irrigation projects is the choice, wherever practicable, of
those areas which are relatively deficient in assured rainfall
as well as irriga-tion(17).
Water demands in the Krishna basin.—A demand for
beneficial use of water arises out of almost every
phase of human activity. Some demands de-
(15) Report of the Irrigation Commission 1972, Vol. I pp. 160, 164-166 Fig. 8.2.
(16) See Circular letter No. N.R.4 (17) (58) dated 2-12-1958 from the Planning Commission to all State Governments;
Indian Irrigation Commission 1972, Vol. I, p. 259.
(17) Fourth Five Year Plan, p. 248.
pending on flow uses do not involve removing the water
from its natural location. These include such activities as 68
conservation of fish and wildlife, swimming and
recreational activities, navigation on rivers and lakes and
the disposal of waste. These are non-withdrawal uses.
Under certain conditions, hydropower developments are
in this category. There are some demands for non-
withdrawal uses in the Krishna basin.
Withdrawal uses of water, which involve continual removal
of water from its natural location either permanently or
temporarily, include irrigation, hydro-power involving
diversion of water to a different watershed, nevigation on
canals, industrial use, public water supplies, domestic and
stockwatering use. There are demands for all these categories
of withdrawal uses in the Krishna basin. The largest
demands are for irrigation and for hydro-power involving
diversion out of the basin.
We have provided in our final order that beneficial use
shall include any use made by any State of the waters of
the river Krishna for domestic, munici-pal, irrigation,
industrial, production of power, navigation, pisciculture, wild
life protection and recreation purposes.
Technique of development of river resources in the Krishna
basin.—All the rivers of the Krishna river system have one
common feature. During the monsoon, they pass enormous
volumes of water part of which runs waste to the sea.
After the monsoon, their flow is too meagre for 69
planned agriculture. Such being the pattern of inflows,
provision of regulating storages to even out the wide
seasonal fluctuation becomes the key technique of
development of river resources. The water stored
during the rains is let out from time to time according to
the requirements of irrigation and other beneficial uses.
However, evaporation losses from the free water surface
of storage reservoirs are very high, particularly if the water
spread is large. Some of the earlier irrigation works derive
their supplies from diversion of river water into canals.
 22

Irrigation Development.—The source-wise irrigation in year 1969-70 is given in the following table:—
the Krishna basin in the three States during the

SI. Source of Area irrigated in '000 hectares Total area

No Irrigation irrigated
. Maharashtr Mysore Andhra Pradesh
a
1. 2 3 4 5 6
1. Canals . . . . . . . . 134.8 252.6 352.6 740.0
2. Tanks . . . . . . . . 6.5 169.6 196.1 372.2
3. Tube wells . . . . . . . . .. 6.3 6.3
4. Wells . . . . . . . . 295.7 136.7 107.3 539.7
5. Other sources . . . . . . . 54.0 36.1 20.9 111.0
. .
Total . . . . . . . 491.O 595.0 683.2 1769.2
70 . .
Classification of irrigation projects.—For purposes of water annually as medium, works and projects (including
planning and administration it is usual to classify projects small tanks and diversions but excluding wells) utilising less
costing more than Rs. 50 million each as major, irrigation than 1 T.M.C. annually of water as minor.
schemes costing between Rs. 2.5 million and Rs. 50 million
as medium and works costing up to Rs. 2.5 million in the
Major Irrigation Projects using more than 10 T.M.C. of
plains and Rs. 3 million in the hilly regions as minor.
water annually.—Major Irrigation Projects in the Krishna
For purposes of this case, it is convenient to classify basin in operation and under construction using more than
projects utilising more than 3 T.M.C. of water annually as 10 T.M.C. of water annually, are given below:—
major, projects utilising 1 to 3 T.M.C. of

Name of Project Year of com- Type Sub-basin State

mencement of benefited
operation
1. Nira System Ex Vir . . . . . . 1892 Storage K5 Maharashtra
. . cum
(i) Left Bank Canal . . . . . . . diversion
(ii) Right Bank Canal . . . . . . 1928 „ " "
. .
2. Vir Dam Project . . . . . 1962 Storage " "
.3. Bhima
. Project . . . . . . Under " " "
. . construction
71 4. Kukadi Project . . . . . . Under " K-5 "
. . construction
5. Khadakwasla Project Stage I . . . . . 1970 " " "
. Ghod
6. . Project . . . . . . . 1958 " " "
. Krishna Project
7. . . . . . . Under construc- " K-l "
. . tion
8. Warna Project . . . . . . . Under construc- " " "
. tion
9. Radhanagari Project . . . . . . . 1952 " " "
.10. Upper Krishna Project Stage I . . . . Under construc- " K-2 Mysore
. . tion
11. Ghataprabha . . . . . . . 1951 Diversion K-3 "
Stage I . . . . . .
. .
Stage II . . . . . . . Under construc- Storage " "
. tion
 23

Sl. Name of Project Year of Type Sub-basin State

No comm- benefited
encement of
12 Malaprabha Project . . . . . . . operation
1972 Storage K-4 Mysore
. .
13 Bhadra Project . . . . . . . 1957 „ K-8 „
.
14. .Tungabhadra Project . . . . . . . „ ,, Mysore
.Low Level Canal . . . . . . . . and
Andhra
Right Side . . . . . . . . 1953
LeftSide . . . . . . . . 1953 Mysore
15. .
Tungabhadra Right Bank High Level Canal . 1967 " " Mysore
. . and Andhra
Stages I & II Pradesh
16. Rajolibunda Diversion Scheme . . . . — Diversion „ „
72 17. .Kurnool
. Cuddapah Canal . . . . . 1866 " " Andhra
. Pradesh
Improvements . . . . . . 1962
. .
18. Nagarjunasagar Project . . . . . . 1967 Storage K-7 "
19. .Krishna Delta System . . . . . 1855 Diversion „ "
20. .Tunga
. Anicut . . . . . . 1955 " K-8 Mysore
.
Lining of canals.—In Maharashtra, all the canals in the Medium irrigation projects.—Medium irrigation projects
Krishna basin (except the first 12 miles of Khadakwasla in the Krishna basin using 1 to 3 T.M.C. of water
Project) are unlined. annually are Krishna Canal and Tulshi Project in K1,
Mhaswad, Mangi tank, Ekruk tank and Khasapur tank in
In Mysore, it is proposed to line the main canal, branches K5, Kurnoor, Chandramapalli and Kotepallivaga in K6,
and distributaries (up to 10 cusecs capacity) of the Upper Okachettivaga and Vaikunthapu-ram Pumping Scheme in K7,
Krishna Project and the main canal and branches of the Ambligola, Anjanpur Reservoir, Dharma Canal System
Malaprabha Project. The main canals of the Tungabhadra and Dharma Project, Hagari Bommanhalli and
Project Left Bank Low Level Canal, the Tungabhadra Project Gajuladinne in K8, Pakhal Lake and Lankasagar in K12.
High Level Canal, the Tungabhadra Project Right Bank
Low Level Canal up to mile 14/0 (Power canal portion) Small diversions.—Where topographical conditions are
and the Rajo-libunda Diversion Scheme have been favourable, anicuts are built across streams and small
lined. All other canals in the Krishna basin are unlined. canals are taken for a short distance. Some diversion
It is stated on behalf of Mysore that the main canal and schemes were constructed centuries ago. The Vijayanagar
branches of most of the proposed major projects will be channels previously known as pre-Mughal channels in
lined. Bellary and Raichur districts of Mysore and Kurnool
In Andhra Pradesh, the main canals of the Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh were constructed by the powerful
Vijayanagar Kings during 1500 A. D. to 1560 A.D. 74
Cuddapah Canal up to mile 76, the Rajolibunda Diversion
Scheme and the Tungabhadra Project Right Bank High Tanks.—In Andhra Pradesh and Mysore, irrigation from
Level Canal from Mysore-Andhra Pradesh border up to storage tanks has been practised from the earliest times down
mile 116/0 in Andhra Pradesh are lined. The to this day. The storage tanks are constructed by forming
73 Nagarjunasagar Project Left Canal up to mile 85 is to be earthern bunds across valleys and small streams. The
lined as per sanctioned estimate. All other canals in the tanks have shallow depth and comparatively large
basin are unlined. waterspread and there is considerable loss of water from
Major irrigation projects using 3 to 10 T.M.C. of water evaporation. On some streams there are groups of tanks
annually.—Major irrigation projects in the Krishna basin where the surplus water of an upper tank and the drainage
using 3 to 10 T.M.C. of water annually are Mutha System of its wet cultivation are caught and used in a lower
Ex-Khadakwasla in K5, Koilsagar, Dindi and Guntur tank. There are thousands of tanks in Andhra Pradesh and
channel in K7, Bhadra Anicut in K8, Bhairavanitippa and Mysore. There are tanks in Maharashtra also.
Vanivilas Sagar in K9, Musi in K10, Palair in Kll,
Muniyeru and Wyra in K12.
1MofI&P/73—5.
 24

Irrigation from wells.—From the information supplied

by the parties, it appears the areas irrigated from wells 1969-70 Mysore 1,36,670
in the Krishna basin within Maharashtra, Mysore and 1969-70 Andhra Pradesh 1,07,300
Andhra Pradesh were as follows:—
Flood Control.—There is no separate scheme for flood
control in operation.
Year Name of State Net area
irrigated by
wells in Power Development.—The following hydro-electric power 75
hectares
projects based on westward diversion of water are in
1969-70 Maharashtra 2,95,920 operation :—

Sl. Name of Project Installed Sub-basin State

No capacity benefited
. M.W.

1 2 3 4 5

1. Koyna Hydro-Electric Project Stages I & II. . . . 540 K1 Maharashtra

. .
2. Tata Hydro-Power Supply Scheme (Khopoli Power House) . . . 70.0 K5 "
3. .Andhra
. Valley Power Supply Scheme (Bhivpuri Power House) . . . 72.0 K5 "
. .Power Scheme Mulshi Dam (Bhira Power House)
4. Tata . . . 132.0 K5 "
. .
The following hydro-electric projects involving use of
tail race waters of existing westward diversion sche- mes are under construction :—

Sl. Name of Project Installed Sub-basin State

No. capacity benefited
M.W.

3 4 5
1 2
320 Kl Maharashtra
1. Koyna Hydro Stage III

2. Bhira tail race development 80 K5 "

. . . . . . . . .

Other hydro-electric power projects in operation are as follows :—

Sl. Name of Project . Installed Sub-basin State benefited

No capacity
. M.W.
1 2 3 4 5
1. Tungabhadra Project Dam Power House on right side 36 K8 Andhra Pradesh
. . . . . and
Mysore in
the ratio of
76 4:1 Andhra-
2. Tungabhadra Project Power House on right canal at Hampi 36 K8
Pradesh and
. . .
Mysore in the
ratio of 4:1
*3.Tungabhadra Project Dam Power House on left side at Munirabad. 27 " Mysore
4.Bhadra Hydro-electric Project 33.2 " Mysore
5..Gokak. Mills
. Power
. .House
. . . 2.6 K3 Mysore
6. . . . Hydro
Radhanagari . .Scheme
. . . 4.8 Kl Maharashtra
. . . . . . . .
*Note: In item 3 Andhra Pradesh claims a share. This claim is disputed by Mysore and will be dealt with separately.
 25

Other hydro-electric power projects under construction are as follows :—

Sl. Name of Project Installed Sub-basin State benefited

No. capacity
M.W.

1 2 3 4 5

1. Bhatgar & Vir Hydro-electric Project

(i) Bhatgar Dam Power House 16 K5 Maharashtra
. . . . . .
(ii) Vir Dam Power House 9 K5 Maharashtra
. . . . . .
2. Srisailam Hydro-electric Project 440 K7 Andhra Pradesh
. . . . .
3. Nagarjunasagar Pumped Storage Hydro-electric Scheme 100 K7 Andhra Pradesh

77 Municipal and domestic water supply. —Open wells There are navigation facilities in the delta canals
and bore wells are the main sources of water supply in below Vijayawada. The canals are open to navigation for
villages. Since independence, rural water supply has nine to ten months in the year.
received special attention by its inclusion under various
programmes in the Five Year Plans. Most of the major A network of canals connects the Krishna and 78
cities and towns have some provision of water supply. Godavari Rivers to the sea ports of Kakinada and
The more important municipal water supply schemes in Machilipatnam.
operation in the Krishna basin are—
The Krishna Delta Elluru Canal takes off from
Vijayawada and runs North to Elluru where it joins the
Godavari West Canal which takes off from the anicut
Name of scheme Sub- State benefited
across the Godavari at Dowlaishwaram. From
basin
Sholapur city water supply K5 Maharashtra Dowlaishwaram, the Godavari Eastern Canal takes off and
scheme goes up to Kakinada port. From Vijayawada, another
canal called the Bandar Canal takes off and connects
Water supply to twin cities
Vijayawada With Machilipatnam port.
of Hyderabad and
Secunderabad K10 Aadhra Pradesh
Mutha system Ex- K5 Maharashtra The Krishna Western Main Canal takes off from the
Khadakwasla Vijayawada anicut on the Sithanagaram side, is continued
under the name of Kommamur Canal and joins the
The Mutha system Ex-Khadakwasla supplies water to Buckingham Canal which in its turn stretches to the
Poona city, Poona and Kirkee Cantonment areas. south of Madras city.

Navigation.—The Krishna river is navigable from
sea to 22 miles upstream of Prakasham barrage
throughout the year and up to about 60 miles upstream of
the barrage during the monsoon months. On account
of their rocky and shallow beds and their rapid course
during the monsoon months, the other rivers and the
upper reaches of the Krishna are not navigable.
Except parts of the Kurnool Cuddapah Canal, the
other canals in the Krishna basin are not navigable.
Some features of Krishna basin (18).
The culturable area, the net and gross sown area
and the net and gross irrigated area in the Krishna

(18) Statistical Abstract of Mysore 1970-71, pp, 17-19, 23, 39, 42; Season and Crop Report of Maharashtra State 1969-70,
pp. 40—43, 46; Season and Crop Report of Andhra Pradesh for the agricultural year 1969-70, pp. 105; Statistical
Abstract of Andhra Pradesh 1971, pp. 54-55.
1 M of I & P/73
 26

basin in the three States during 1969-70 are given in the following table:

79 Andhra Total of Kri-

Item Mysore Maharashtra
Pradesh shna drainage
Basin
1 2 3 4 5
(Area in 1000 hectares)
(i) Cultivable area (1969-70) . . . . 9,270 5,749 5,429 20,448
(ii) Net area sown (1969-70) . . . 7,247 4,857 3,706 15,810
.
(iii) Gross sown area (1969-70) . . . 7,498 5,101 4,230 16,829
.(iv) Net area irrigated (1969-70) . . . 595 491 683 1,769
.(v) Gross area irrigated (1969-70) . . . 698 571 960 2,229
.
Soils.—The four major soil groups in India are (1)
alluvial soils, (2) black soils (regur), (3) red soils and The capability of the soil and the use to which it may
(4) laterite and lateritic soils. In the Krishna basin, deep, be put are determined largely by the depth, texture,
medium and shallow black soils, red loamy and red structure, permeability, moisture holding capacity,
sandy soils and mixed red and black soils predominate. nutrient elements, organic matter, degree of acidity or
There are also some laterites and lateritic soils, alluvial alkalinity, surface drainage, slope, susceptibility to 81
soils and saline and alkaline soils in the basin. erosion and other characteristics of the soil.
Crop seasons.—The crop seasons in the Krishna basin
The principal soils in the several sub-basins are are not as well defined as in northern India. The sowing of
shown in the following table :— crops and other agricultural operations are determined
largely by the timing and incidence of rainfall. In
Maharashtra and Bombay-Karnataka areas of Mysore in
Sub-basin Soils
the Krishna basin, broadly the crop seasons are June to
Generally medium black. In the October (Kharif). October to February (Rabi) and
K1 Upper
valleys, medium and deep black, February to June (Hot weather). In Andhra Pradesh and
Krishna lateritic in western parts. the rest of Mysore, the crop season for irrigated paddy in
80 K2 Middle Principally medium and deep black. June-July to November-December (Abi) and January to
Krishna April (Tabi).
K3 Ghataprabha Medium and deep black; also lateritic.
K4 Malaprabha Lateritic, deep to medium black, mixed Crops.—The' main crops of the Krishna basin are
red and black. jowar, bajra, cotton, oilseeds, pulses, tobacco, wheat,
K5 Upper Bhima Generally medium black. Deep black in gram, ragi, paddy and sugarcane. There are patches of
the valleys along river courses. vegetable and fruit cultivation including mangoes, sweet
limes, grapes, bananas, chillies and lemons. Water
K6 Lower Bhima Shallow and medium black, deep
melons are grown in the rever bed Paddy and sugarcane
black along river courses, lateritic.
are mostly irrigated crops. The other crops are grown
K7 Lower Predominantly red sandy loam. under both rainfall and irrigated conditions.
Some red and black. Deep black in
Krishna the valley along river course. Alluvial
in Delta.
K8 Tungabhadra Red Sandy to loamy in the upper In all the three States, jowar and bajra are the staple
reaches. Red, sandy red, and sandy
black in the lower parts. Deep black food crops and are extensively cultivated. Bajra is grown
in the valley along river courses. on the poorer soils. Pulses are sown mostly as winter
Predominantly red loamy and red- crops. Cotton is grown in rich black soils. Groundnut and 82
K9 Vedavathi
sandy, In the upper reaches of rivers, oilseeds are extensively grown.
deep black. Mixed red and black soils.

K10 Musi predominantly red sandy, red loamy soil

In Maharashtra, the jowar-bajra-wheat-oilseeds-
K11 Palleru Predominantly red loamy soil. sugarcane zone of the Bhima valley and the jowar-bajra-
wheat-sugarcane belt of the Krishna valley are important
K12 Muneru Red loamy.
agricultural regions. Sugarcane has increas-ing acreage
under cultivation. Paddy, Cotton and tobacco are other
important crops.
 27
In Mysore, jowar is an important food crop. Wheat is
grown mostly in Belgaum, Bijapur, Gulbarga, Bidar and
Dharwar Districts. In irrigated areas, rice is a favourite
crop. Bijapur, Dharwar, Bellary, Chitradurga, Raichur and
Gulbarga Districts are important cotton areas. Sugarcane
and tobacco are also grown. Spices and arecanut are
important subsidiary crops.
In Andhra Pradesh, rice production finds pride of place
throughout the State. Tobacco cultivation is a speciality in the
dry tracts of Guntur, Prakasham and Krishna Districts.
Sugarcane is also grown.
Land use of Krishna basin area in the three States
during 1967-68.
Andhra Pradesh: Of the gross irrigated area of
8,70,000 hectares, about 82.4% is under paddy, 0.9%
under sugarcane and the balance under other crops. The
other irrigated crops are jowar, bajra, maize, wheat, ragi,
millets, condiments, spices, groundnut, sesamum, cotton,
tobacco and fodder crops. Food and non-food crops
respectively cover about 92.1% and 7.9% of the irrigated
cropped area.
83 Maharashtra : Of the gross irrigated area of
5,53,700 hectares nearly 32.8% is under jowar,
16.8% under sugarcane, 10. 6% under wheat, 5.2%
under bajra, 4.8% under paddy and the balance under other
crops. The other irrigated crops are maize, ragi, cotton, barley,
gram, pulses, condiments, spices, groundnut, sesamum,
tobacco and fodder crops. Food
and non-food crops cover about 90.5% and 9.5% of the
irrigated cropped area respectively.
Mysore : Of the gross irrigated area of 6,80,500
hectares, 47.7% is under paddy, 12.9% under jowar, 7.6%
under sugarcane, 3.3% under maize, 1.9% under wheat
and the balance under other crops. The other irrigated crops
are ragi, barley, millets, gram, pulses and cotton. The food
and non-food crops represent about 84.0% and 16.0% of
the irrigated cropped area respectively.
Of the total irrigated area in the basin, 50.7% is under
paddy, 13.2% under jowar, 7.2% under sugarcane, 3.5%
under wheat, 1.5% under bajra, 2.0% under maize and
the balance under other miscellaneous crops.
Out of a total area of 26 million hectares, nearly 3
million hectares are under forests. The area annually
cropped in the Krishna basin is about 16.4 million hectares. 84
Agriculture is generally rain-fed with relatively low yields
except in about 2.1 million hectares of irrigated area, of
which about 1.07 million hectares grow paddy.
Other data regarding Krishna basin: An agreed statement
giving the catchment areas at different points in the Krishna
basin as also agreed data regarding forests, minerals,
industries and communications in the Krishna basin and a brief
description of the population, topography etc. of the States of
Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh are included in the
volume containing appendices.
 CHAPTER IV
85
Inter-State conference and disputed agreement of July,
1951 Issue-I
Inter-State conference on the 27th and 28th July,
1951 :
A conference was held in the Planning Commission, New
Delhi, with the representatives of Bombay, Madras,
Hyderabad, Mysore and Madhya Pradesh Governments to
discuss the utilisation of supplies in the Krishna and
Godavari river basins so that an assessment could be made
of the relative merits of the projects for inclusion in the
First Five Year Plan. The Governments of Mysore, Bombay,
Madras and Hyderabad only were interested in the supplies of
the Krishna river basin.
Disputes : In the present proceedings, the dispute is
whether as a result of the deliberations at the conference, a
concluded agreement was reached between the States of
Bombay, Madras, Mysore and Hyderabad regarding
allocation of the waters of the Krishna basin and, if so,
whether it is valid and subsisting.
Pleadings : Andhra Pradesh pleaded that a concluded
agreement was reached amongst all the four States regarding
the Krishna waters. Maharashtra and Mysore pleaded that
there was no concluded agreement. They alleged that the
agreement, if any, was invalid because (i) it did not
conform to the provisions of article 299 of the
86 Constitution and (ii) it was inequitable, arbitrary and based
on inadequate data. They also alleged that (i) the
agreement, if any, had become void because it allocated
water for specific projects and some of the projects had
been abandoned and (ii) it ceased to be operative on the
reorganisation of States.
Issue : Accordingly the following issue was raised on
the 29th January, 1970.—
Issue I: Was there any concluded agreement regarding
allocation of the waters of the river Krishna as
alleged ? Was the agreement valid and enforceable
? Is it still subsisting and operative and binding
upon the States con-
28
cerned in the present reference ? If so, with what
effect ? Is there any breach of the agreement as
alleged ?
Sub-issues
(1) Was there a concluded agreement as alleged ? Was
the agreement ratified, acted upon and treated as
binding by the States concerned ?
(2) Was the agreement in conformity with article 299
of the Constitution ? Was it within the purview
of the article ?
(3) Was the agreement inequitable or arbitrary
or based on inadequate data? If so, with
what effect?
(4) Did the agreement on its true construction 87
allocate waters for specific projects ? Have
some of the projects been abandoned ? If
so, has the agreement become void ?
(5) Has the agreement ceased to be operative on
the reorganisation of the States ?
(6) If the agreement is binding, what re-alloca
tion of waters, if any, should be made, in
view of the reorganisation of States ?
(7) Is there any breach of the agreement as alleg
ed by Andhra ?
(8) Is the validity of the agreement dependent
upon the validity of the Godavari agreement ?
Supplementary Pleadings : On the 29th January, 1971,
the Tribunal directed Andhra Pradesh to furnish particulars
of the alleged agreement. Andhra Pradesh supplied the
particulars, and all parties filed supplementary pleadings.
Divergent case of the parties on the question whether there
was a concluded agreement :
The case of Andhra Pradesh is that (1) the agreement
regarding the allocation of the Krishna water was
 29
oral and was entered into on the 27th July, 1951 at the
conference among Shri Jivraj Mehta, Minister, P.W.D.,
Bombay, Shri M. K. Vellodi, Chief Minister, Hyderabad,
88 Shri M. Bhakatavatsalam, Ministry, P.W.D., Madras and
Shri K. C. Reddy, Chief Minister, Mysore, on behalf of their
respective States, (2) there was a separate oral agreement on
the 28th July, 1951 among Bombay, Hyderabad and
Madras modifying their respective shares of the Krishna
waters and Mysore was, in no way, affected by this
modification and (3) Mysore ratified, acted upon and treated
the agreement as binding and is precluded from denying it.
Andhra Pradesh relied upon the alleged oral agreement of
the 27th July, 1951. It is not the case of Andhra Pradesh
that the agreement was made in writing or that there was
an oral agreement on the 28th July to which Mysore was
a party.
Mysore and Maharashtra denied that there was any oral
agreement on the 27th July or that a separate and
distinct oral agreement concerning the Krishna waters was
reached on the 28th July.
It is common case that a memorandum of agreement
was drawn up and was subsequently ratified by Bombay,
Hyderabad and Madras. It is the case of Andhra Pradesh
that the three States, having ratified the memorandum of
agreement, were bound by it. On the other hand, it is the
case of Mysore and Maharashtra that the three States ratified
the memorandum of agreement upon the condition that
Mysore also would ratify it, and that as Mysore refused to
89 ratify, there was no operative and concluded agreement by
which the ratifying States were bound.
Points for decision :
The points arising for decision are : (1) whether there
was a concluded oral agreement on the 27th July, 1951
between the concerned States including Mysore regarding
the Krishna waters, (2) whether Mysore ratified the
agreement, (3) whether Mysore acted upon and treated
the agreement as binding and is precluded from denying
it and (4) whether, in the absence of ratification by Mysore,
there was any operative and concluded agreement.
Evidence.—The praties did not call any oral evidence on
Issue No. 1. They relied entirely on the documentary
evidence on the record.
Preparations for the conference.—The Governments of
Bombay, Hyderabad and Madras had important schemes for
irrigation and electrification based on the Krishna river and its
tributaries, such as the Koyna Project (Bombay), the Lower
Krishna (Hyderabad) and the Krishna Pennar Project
(Madras). On the 7th May, 1951, the Planning Commission
wrote to the Governments of Bombay, Hyderabad, Madras
and Mysore suggesting that a conference might be convened to
discuss the schemes so that early decisions might be taken
on what schemes might be included in the First Five Year
Plan and requesting them to send particulars of the schemes 90
under contemplation, the quantum of proposed withdrawals,
the supplies available at the proposed sites of withdrawals,
the quantum of withdrawals by works already under
construction or in operation, the financial aspect of the
projects and other details. All the State Governments supplied
the required particulars. The information supplied by each
Government was communicated to the other Governments.
Eventually, the Planning Commission invited all the four
States to attend a conference at New Delhi on the 27th and
28th July, 1951, and they all agreed to attend. Mysore was
brought into the picture as it was interested in the supplies
of the Krishna basin, The Government of Madhya Pradesh
was invited as it was interested in the supplies of the
Godavari basin and the conference was convened to discuss
the schemes on the Godavari river system also.
Persons present at the conference :
The conference was duly held on the 27th and 28th July,
1951 at New Delhi. The Planning Commission was
represented by Shri V. T. Krishnamachari, Member, G. R.
Garg, Chief of Natural Resources Division and others. Shri
N. V. Gadgil, Minister for Works, Production and Supply,
attended by invitation. The Central Water and Power
Commission was represented by its Chairman Shri A. N.
Khosla and others. Bombay was represented by Dr. Jivraj 91
Mehta, Minister, P.W.D., Shri Naik Nimabalkar,
Development Minister, the Secretary, P.W.D. and two
engineers. Madras was represented by Shri M.
Bhakatavatsalam, Minister, P.W.D., the Secretary, P.W.D.
and three engineers. Hyderabad was represented by Shri M.
K. Vellodi, Chief Minister, Nawab Zain Yar Jung,
Minister, P.W.D. and two engineers.
Mysore was represented by Shri K.C. Ready, Chief
Minister. Shri Reddy was not accompanied by any
engin eer or oth er offi cer. He at t ended th e
con feren ce on t h e 27 t h Jul y, 1 95 1 on l y.
 30

Andhra Pradesh's pleading (1) suggests that he was

present in the forenoon on the 27th July, 1951 for a Per cent T.M.C.
few hours only at the inaugural session of the conference. Mysore . . . . 1 10
However, the summary record of discussion stated that he (provisional)
attended on the 27th July and we shall assume that he was Madras . . . . 47 470
present at the conference in the afternoon also on that day.
The balance flow in excess of 1000 T.M.C. was
allotted as follows :—
Shri Aghnibhoj, Minister, P.W.D., Madhya Pradesh, also
attended, but he was interested in the Godavari basin only.
Bombay . . . . 30 per cent
Summary record of discussions, memorandum of .Hyderabad . . . . 30 per cent
agreement and C.W.P.C. technical note : .Mysore . . . . 1 per cent
. (provisional)
The Central Water & Power Commission prepared a
Madras . . . . 39 per cent
technical note on the utilisation of supplies in the Krishna
valley on the basis of the information supplied by the State It was stated that, as a result of further engineering
Governments. The Planning Commission kept a summary scrutiny, the allocation to Mysore might be increased by
record of the discussions at the conference. A 1%, such increase to come out of the share of Madras.
92
memorandum of agreement allocating the flows of the
Part II related to the Godavari. Part III contained general
river basins amongst the concerned States was drawn up
provisions. It was provided that the allocations would be
and annexed to the summary record of discussions. Copies
reviewed after 25 years.
of the three documents are given at the end of this
Chapter.
The summary record of discussions shows that there
Main provisions of memorandum of agreement : was no concluded oral agreement on the 27th July:

The memorandum of agreement was divided into three The summary record of discussions shows that in the
parts. Part I related to the Krishna. The dependable annual forenoon of the 27th July 1951, the conference assembled,
flow of the Krishna basin was accepted as 1715 T.M.C. The Shri V. T. Krishnamachari opened the discussion, Shri G. R.
allocations for the existing utilisations and for projects Garg explained the technical note and several participants
under construction were as follows :— expressed their views on the available supply and its
utilisation. Thereupon the conference adjourned till 4 P.M.
to enable the engineers to arrive at an agreement about 94
T.M.C. the Krishna waters. At 4 P.M. the conference re-assembled
Bombay . . . . . 176 and the engineers reported a tentative agreement regarding
Hyderabad 180 the Krishna waters. No engineer of Mysore was present at
.Mysore
. . . . 98.5 the deliberations of the engineers or was a party to the
.Madras
. . . . 290 tentative agreement reported by them.

744.5 After the conference re-assembled at 4 P.M., Shri

N.V. Gadgil suggested that the percentage adopted by the
It was stated that if there were any omissions in respect engineers for Bombay should be increased After discussion it
of the existing utilisations, the necessary adjustments would be was agreed that a different set of proportions for discharges
made in the figures of dependable flow and existing above 1000 T.M.C. should be adopted in respect of the
utilisations. The balance flow after meeting the above Krishna waters, but the proportions were not settled and
allocations was taken to be 1000 T.M.C. and was allotted agreed to on the 27th July.
93
as follows :—
The memorandum of agreement was not prepared on
the 27th July and Shri K. C. Reddy could not have agreed to
Per cent T.M.C the terms of the memorandum on that day. Clearly, there
Bombay 24 240 was no concluded agreement on the 27th July.
.Hyderabad
. . . . 28 280
. . . . .
(1) APK TV pp. 5-6.
 31
On the 28th July at 10 A.M., the engineers met to discuss
the distribution of waters in the Godavari basin and
arrived at a tentative set of proportions concerning allocation
of the Godavari waters. The conference assembled at 11.30
A. M. and considered the proposal of the engineers regarding
the Godavari. The engineers were requested to prepare a
memorandum of agreement and the conference adjourned till
3.30 P.M.
Thereafter the engineers drafted a memorandum of
95
agreement. Parts I and II related to the Krishna and the
Godavari respectively. The general provisions of Part III
applied to both the rivers, and its wording suggests that its
terms were discussed and tentatively agreed upon by the
engineers after they had arrived at the tentative agreement
regarding the Godavari on the 28th July.
After the draft memorandum of agreement was prepared,
the conference re-assembled at 3.30 P.M. and proceeded to
consider the draft sentence by sentence. In other words, the
draft was subjected to close scrutiny and discussion.
Clearly, up to this point of time, no final agreement had
been concluded.
Shri N. V. Gadgil stated that the proportions for the
Krishna waters worked out on the previous day were not
equitable. After some discussion the proportions were
modified, Bombay getting 4 per cent more and Hyderabad
and Madras each getting 2 per cent less.
A final draft of the memorandum of agreement was then
drawn up. The summary record of discussions stated that
the basis of distribution of the Krishna and Godavari waters
was shown in the annexed memorandum of agreement as
finally agreed to by the conference.
There is no record of an oral agreement regarding the
96 Krishna waters on the 27th July and a distinct and
separate oral agreement on the 28th July modifying an
earlier agreement. There were only discussions and
negotiations on the 27th July.
Admittedly on the 28th July, Mysore was not represented
at the conference and could not have agreed to the
memorandum of agreement prepared on that day.
(2) MYDK I, p 20.
1 M of I & P/73—6
The memorandum of agreement was not the record of a
concluded agreement :
Though the summary record of discussions stated that
the memorandum of agreement annexed to it was finally
agreed to by the conference, the Mysore Government, at the
earliest opportunity on the 24th September, 1951, treated the
memorandum as a draft agreement (2). The statement was
fully justified, as the Mysore Government was not
represented at the conference on the 28th July when the
draft was prepared. All the States were asked to ratify the
agreement presumably because the memorandum of agree-
ment was a draft and not the record of a concluded
agreement.
Absence of a signed agreement and necessity of ratification
by the concerned States :
The avowed object of the conference was to discuss the
utilisation of the supplies of the Krishna river system, so
that an assessment might be made of the projects for
inclusion in the First Five Year Plan. However, at the
conference, a memorandum of agreement was drawn up 97
allocating the supplies among the concerned States for a
period of 25 years. But it is the common case that the
representatives of the State Governments did not sign and
execute any agreement at the conference. Immediately after
the conference, the Planning Commission requested all the
State Go-vernments to ratify the agreement. The
Government of Bombay, Madras and Hyderabad sent their
letters of ratification to the Planning Commission. As rati-
fication was considered essential, repeated requests for
ratification were made to the Mysore Government. No one
suggested that ratification was unnecessary.
From the surrounding circumstances we draw the
inference that the representatives of the State Governments
did not intend to bind their Governments by an oral
agreement. On the contrary, they intended that the State
Governments would be bound only if they sent formal
signed letters of ratification addressed to the Planning
Commission within a reasonable time.
Mysore's demands for water were not properly scruti-nised
at the confernece :
Mysore had set forth its demands for water in its letter
to the Planning Commission dated the 23rd
 32

98 June, 1951(3 ). These demands were summarized in the
C.W. & P. C. technical note. At the conference on the
27th July, Shri K. C. Reddy handed over to the
Chairman, C. W. & P. C. another note setting forth
Mysore's revised demands. Shri Reddy's note was kept in
the records of the Planning Commission.(4) But apparently
only the C. W. & P. C. note was discussed at the
conference. The demands as allowed
by the conference were shown in the memorandum of
agreement.
The following table shows Mysore's demands (1) as
summarised in the C. W. & P. C. technical note. (2) as
made in Shri Reddy's note and (3) as allowed by the
memorandum of agreement:—

Existing utilisa- Projects Evaporation

tion T.M.C. under New Projects loss T.M.C. Total
construction
T.M.C. T.M.C. T.M.C.
I 2 3 4 5 6

C.W. & P.C. technical note 30 68.50 25.50 __ 124

.Shri .Reddy's
. note . . 45.07
.
Memorandum of agreement 30
. . . (provisional and
The evaporation loss was not quantified in Shri Reddy's
note but it was later shown as 4.50 T.M.C.
99 The Mysore Budget estimates of 1951-52(5) show the
Mysore projects then under construction. It is not
disputed that these projects involved the use of 70.25
T.M.C. of water annually.
In the absence of Mysore's engineers, its demands of
water could not be properly scrutinized at the conference.
The discrepancy between Mysore's earlier demand for
30 T. M. C. and its revised demand for 45.07 T.M.C. for
existing utilisation was not checked and the correct figure
for existing utilisation was not ascertained. Presumably for
this reason, the draft, memorandum of agreement stated that
the allocations for existing utilisations might require
modification.
The memorandum of agreement erroneously assumed that
Mysore's projects under construction would require 68.50
T.M.C. only, though as a matter of fact, They involved the
use of 70.25 T.M.C.
70.25 23.75 4.50 143.57
68.50 10 118.50
-
subject to in-
crease up to
20 T.M.C. on
further
scrutiny)
Mysore's claim for allotment of 23.75 T.M.C. of water
for its new projects could not be properly considered in the
absence of its engineers. For this reason, the
memorandum of agreement provided that the allotment for
the new projects of Mysore was pro-visional and might have
to be increased on further engineering scrutiny.
Mysore refused to ratify the agreement unless its demands 100
for 143.5 T.M.C. of water was allowed in full,
Contention that Mysore wanted to preserve only the right
under an earlier Tungabhadra agreement is rejected :
Andhra Pradesh argued that Mysore wanted to preserve
only its established rights under an earlier Tungabhadra
agreement and that as these rights were preserved by the
memorandum of agreement of 1951, Mysore suffered no
prejudice. It was argued that the statement of Shri K. C.
Reddy at the conference supported the contention. Shri
Reddy had stated that "So far as the Krishna River basin
was concerned, Mysore had certain agreement with
Madras and

(3) MYDK I p. 9; APDK I pp. 27- 29.

(4) APDK IX pp. 76—80.
(5) MYDK XVII, pp. 31—32.
 33
Hyderabad and the new agreement, that might be arrived
at, should take a note of the existing agreement".
Obviously Shri Reddy was referring to the agreement of
July, 1944 between Madras and Mysore as modified by the
supplemental agreements of December, 1945 and 1946
among Madras, Hyderabad and Mysore.
Shri Reddy wanted to preserve Mysore's established -
rights under the earlier Tungabhadra agreement, but he
did not say that Mysore had no other claims on
Tungabhadra waters. As a matter of fact, Mysore's notes
had put forward larger claims.
The agreement of July 1944 between Madras and Mysore
101 related to the Tungabhadra waters above Mallapuram only.
It did not settle Mysore's share in the waters of the
Vedavathi sub-basin.
The agreement of July 1944 fixed the shares of Madras
and Mysore only in the Tungabhadra waters above
Mallapuram. It did not bind the other riparian States. It
contemplated that in a final apportionment of the
Tungabhadra waters at the instance of the other States, a
different share might be allotted to Mysore.
The agreement of July, 1944 preserved Mysore's existing
utilisations above Mallapuram and established Mysore's right
to use other quantities of water. It is not shown to our
satisfaction that these rights were fully or unconditionally
preserved by the memorandum of agreement of 1951.
Ratification of memorandum of agreement by Bombay,
Madras and Hyderabad :
On the 31st July, 1951, the Planning Commission wrote
to the Governments of Bombay, Madras and Hyderabad
enclosing copies of the summary record of discussions and
memorandum of agreement and asking them to ratify the
agreement. Letters of ratifications were sent to the Planning
Commission by the Madras Government on the 17th August,
1951, by the Hyderabad Government on the 23rd August,
1951 and by the Bombay Government on the 30th August,
1951.
Mysore's refusal to ratify.—On the 31st July, 1951, the
Planning Commission wrote to the Mysore Government
enclosing the documents and asking for early ratification
of the agreement. Shri V. T. Krish-namachari wrote a similar
letter to Shri K. C. Reddy, On the 3rd August, 1951 the
102 Mysore Government acknowledged receipt of the documents.
On the 17th September, 1951. the Personal Assistant to
Shri Reddy wrote to the Personal Secretary to Shri Krish-
namachari stating that Shri Reddy was unwell and
unable to attend to the matter and that the ratification of the
agreement would be sent by the concerned Secretary to the
Government soon.
On the 24th September, 1951, the Mysore Government
wrote to the Planning Commission stating that the draft
agreement should be modified so as to allow Mysore the
right to use 143.5 T.M.C. of water as asked for in Shri
Reddy's note and that the question of ratification would be
considered after the necessary modifications were made.
The letter was sent with the approval of Shri Reddy. Had
Shri Reddy been a party to a concluded agreement, he
could not have treated the memorandum as a draft
agreement. On the 4th October, 1951, the Planning
Commission wrote to the Mysore Government stating that
the discrepancy between 45 T.M.C. claimed in Shri
Reddy's note and 30 T.M.C. allowed by the memorandum of
agreement on account of existing utilisation could be
corrected under paragraph 2 of Part I of the memorandum,
but the correction could be done only after careful verification
and consultation with the other State Governments and, as this
would take a considerable time, Mysore should not withhold
ratification of the agreement. Significantly, the letter did not
say that Mysore was resiling from a concluded agreement. 103
Nor did the letter explain whether the discrepancy between
70.25 T.M.C. claimed in Shri Reddy's note and 68.50 T.M.C.
allowed by the memorandum for projects under
construction could be corrected. Clearly, this discrepancy
could not be corrected under paragraph 2 of part I of the
memorandum. On the 3rd and 19th, November, 1951, the
Planning Commission sent reminders. On the 10th December,
1951, Mysore reiterated its previous stand.
On the 30th March, 1952, Shri K. C. Reddy ceased to be
the Chief Minister of Mysore and, in his place, Shri
Hanumanthiah became the Chief Minister. On the 3rd
May, 1952. Shri V. T. Krishnamachari wrote to Shri
Hanumanthiah stating that, as Mysore had some doubt
about the effect of the memorandum of agreement on
Mysore's rights under the earlier Tungabhadra agreement,
Mysore might ratify the agreement with the proviso that the
ratification would not affect Mysore's rights under the earlier
agreement. In his letters dated 31st October, 1952 and the
16th December, 1952 to Shri Hanumanthiah, Shri
Krishnamachari repeated the suggestion. But the clause that
Mysore would continue to retain its rights under the earlier
agreement could not be inserted in the memorandum of
agreement without the consent of the other State
Governments. A conditional ratification with a pro-viso
preserving those rights would be tantamount to a refusal to 104
ratify and would amount to a new offer. Had the
memorandum of agreement been finally agreed
 34

to at the conference, Mysore could not be asked to ratify
it after adding a new term. On the 4th January, 1953, Shri
Hanumanthiah wrote to Shri Krishna-machari stating that, in
view of the recent drought in the areas served by the
Tungabhadra waters, the ten-tative discussions of the July
1951 conference could not be regarded as a proper basis
for the finalising of an agreement and that another
conference should be called for the purpose. The letter
also stated that no engineer from Mysore was present at
the conference nor was any Mysore representative present
at the deliberations on the 28th July, 1951 though their
presence was necessary for fixing the allocation to
Mysore. In his reply dated the 4th March, 1953, Shri
Krishnamachari stated that Shri K. C. Reddy was present at
the conference on the 27th July, 1951 when an agreement
was reached on the use of the Krishna waters, that the
changes made on the second day did not affect Mysore's
share and that Mysore should ratify the memorandum of
agreement, as its interests were protected by the
memorandum and by the express reservation of its rights
under the earlier Tungabhadra agreement to which the
Planning Commission had agreed. It was not explained how
the Planning Commission could agree to a new term without
any authority from the other States.
105
On the 14th September, 1953, the Andhra State Act,
1953 was passed. Under this Act the Kannada speaking
Taluks of Bellary District were added to the State of Mysore
as from the 1st October, 1953. On the 19th September,
1953, Shri Hanumanthiah wrote to Shri Krishnamachari
claiming more water for Mysore areas including water
for the Bellary areas. On the 16th December, 1953, Shri
Krishnamachari wrote to Shri Hanumanthiah stating that
equitable adjustments on account of the transfer of Bellary
areas to Mysore could be made later. On the 15th July, 1954,
Shri Hanumanthiah wrote to Shri Krishnamachari stating
that corrections on account of irrigation of the Bellary areas
were absolutely necessary. In the subsequent
correspondence up to the 18th March, 1955, these views
were reiterated.
Effect of the correspondence between the Mysore
Government and the Planning Commission :
The correspondence mentioned above( 6) taken either
singly or collectively did not amount to ratifi-cation of the
agreement by the Mysore Government. Nor does it show
that there was ,a concluded oral agreement in July, 1951.
106
Erroneous statements that there wan an agreement in 1951
and Mysore had ratified it:
There were numerous official statements that an
agreement on the allocation of the Krishna waters was
reached at the inter-State conference held on the 27th and
28th July, 1951. The Bombay Government made such
statements in various official letters and documents.(7)
Similar statements were made by central authorities. (8) All
these statements erroneously assumed that the Mysore
Government was a party to the agreement and had ratified
it. The Lower Krishna Project Report 1952 prepared by the
Hyderabad State explicitly stated that the agreement had
been ratified by Mysore. On a review of the correspondence,
we have already shown that Mysore refused to ratify the
agreement. Some authorities were not even aware of the
refusal of Mysore to ratify. The Central Water and Power
Commission in its letter to the State Governments dated 107
the 24th February, 1959(9) stated that it was not known
whether Mysore had ratified the agreement.
Moreover, the Andhra Pradesh Government in its letter
to the Central Water and Power Commission dated the
10th July, 1959, (10) and at the inter-State conference on the
26th and 27th September, 1960,(11) all the States admitted
that the agreement was not ratified by Mysore. Finally, on
the 23rd March, 1963, the Union Minister for Irrigation
and Power stated in the Lok Sabha(12) "They (the Planning
Commission) convened a conference in New Delhi on
27th and 28th July, 1951, to discuss the utilisation of sup-
plies in the two river basins and make an assessment of the
relative merits of the projects proposed for inclusion in the
second part of the First Year Plan.***(*).

(6) MYDK I pp. 11—54; APDK IX pp. 69, 72.

(7) Letter dated 27-12-1951 to the Madras Government; APK II p. 34; Letter dated 30-7-1959 to the Government of India,
MRK-II
pp. 181—189; Letter dated 30-8-1959 to the Planning Commission, APK-II pp. 83-88; Koyna Hydro Electric Project
Reports of
January 1952 p. VI, December 1952 p. V, March 1956 p. IV, October 1956 p. IV.
(8) Statement of Prime Minister Shri Jawahar Lal Nehru in the Lok Sabha on 31-8-1951, APDK -IX p. 43; First Five
Year Plan
355; Report of the Technical Committee for the Optimum Utilisation of Krishna and Godavari Waters, December
1952, pp.
15, 16, 91—93; Report of the States Reorganisation Commission 1955, p. 224.
(9) MYDK I, pp. 59—61.
(10) APDK I, pp. 72-73.
(11) APDK IV, pp. 2—17.
(12) APK II, pp. 123—
125.
 35
After a brief review of the then existing utilisation of supplies
in the two river basins and the contemplated utilisation by the
States concerned, a memorandum of agreement was drawn
up, allocating the flows of the two rivers amongst the
participating States. While the other participating States
ratified the agreement, Mysore objected to it at the earliest
108 opportunity and declined to ratify it.*** In order to bring
about a settlement, an inter-State conference was convened in
New Delhi under my chairmanship on September 26 and
27, 1960. Owing, however, to widely divergent views
expressed at the conference, no settlement could be
reached.**** As grave doubts were expressed at the
conference about the validity or otherwise of the 1951
Agreement, my Ministry had the whole matter examined by
the Ministry of Law at the highest level. Briefly the advice
of the Ministry of Law was that the Agreement was legally
wholly ineffective and unenforceable. This view was
generally supported by the Attorney General of India, who
stated that the Agreement must be treated as having become
void, if it was not void at least partially ab initio".
Statements that Planning Commission had made an
award in July, 1951 :
As no binding agreement concerning the Krishna waters
was reached at the conference held on the 27th and 28th July,
1951, it was thought that the memorandum of agreement
drawn up in July 1951 was an award made by the Planning
Commission and/or the Government of India with regard
to the allocation of the Krishna waters for the existing and
109 future projects of the States and statements to that effect
were made from time to time.(13)
Statements by the Mysore Government and others that
there was an award:
The Government of Mysore and other authorities stated that
the Planning Commission had made an award in 1951.
Clause 10(i) of the conclusion reached at the
conference of Ministers of Andhra Pradesh and Mysore
held at 14
the Tungabhadra Dam on the 5th and 6th October
1957,( ) stated: "It is agreed that the waters of the
Reservoir be utilised on
(13) See letter of the Madras Government to the Bombay Government dated 11-5-1953, APDK-IX pp. 25—27 (Award
of July, 1951 made by the Government of India); Report on the Tungabhadra Project High Level Canal
Scheme 1954 Government of Andhra APPK III, p. 7 (allocation of the Planning Commission); Report of the
COPP Irrigation and Power Team on Nagar-junasagar Project 1960.pp.4-5 (1951 award and allocations as fixed
by the Planning Commission at the 1951 Conference).
(14) APK II, pp. 58-59 *
(15) APDKIX, p. 171.
(16) APDK IX, pp. 172—174.
(17) MYDK XVII, pp. 23—29.
(18) MRDK VI, pp. 56—60.
(19) MYDK XII, pp. 80—115.
(20) MYDK I, p. 87
(21) APDK I, pp. 72—81.
(22) APK IV, pp. 95—101; MYDK-I, pp. 91—92.
(23) MYDK I, pp. 95—102.
both sides in the manner and for the areas specified by the
Governments of former Hyderabad and Composite Madras
States in conformity with the framework of the Planning
Commission award of 1951 irrespective of the territories in
which the areas are now situated The question of
utilisation of surplus waters, if any, wilt be considered
after a period of two years."
On an enquiry made by the Andhra Pradesh Government 110
on the 14q th August, 1957(15) whether the proposed
abstraction of supplies by the Gayathri reservoir, then under
construction, would be within the allocations of the Delhi
award of 1951, the Government of Mysore stated on the
8th August 1958( 16) that the contemplated storage through
the reservoir would be well within the provisions of the
award. On a further enquiry by the Andhra Pradesh
Government, the Mysore Government said that the so-called
'1951 award' was legally void and unenforceable. (17)
During the negotiations with the Bombay Government
with regard to the sharing of the water stored in the Koyna
reservoir, the Government of Mysore in its letter dated the
20th October 1958 (18) sought to justify its demand for the
water on the basis of 'the Planning Commission award of
1951'. The negotiations were inconclusive and no agreement
was reached on the subject between the two Governments.
In the correspondence regarding the clearance of
Ghataprabha Project, Stage II during 1959(19) the Central 111
Water & Power Commission as also the Mysore
Government referred to the 1951 award of the Planning
Commission.
During 1959-1960, in course of the correspondence
arising out of the proposal of the Central Water and Power
Commission for reallocation of the Krishna waters in
consequence of the reorganisation of States, reference was
made to the allocations in the Planning Commission award
of 1951 by the Government of India, ( 20) the Andhra
Pradesh Government ( 21) and the Mysore Government.
(22) Subsequently in 1961 (23) the Mysore Government
stated that the so called memorandum of agreement of
1951 could not be regarded as an award and that the
Planning Commission had no authority to make any
award.
 36
The Planning Commission did not make and had no
power to make an award:
In the present proceedings, none of the parties relied on
any award made by the Planning Commission or the
Government of India concerning the Krishna waters and
consequently no issue was raised as to the existence and
112 validity of the supposed award. It is plain beyond doubt
that in July 1951 the Government of India or the Planning
Commission had no power of superintendance or
paramountcy control over the States and had no authority to
make an award apportioning the Krishna waters, nor had
they, as a matter of fact, made such an award. The
minutes of the Tribunal's proceedings, dated the 17th
February, 1971 recorded the following admission of
the parties:—
"Learned Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh,
Learned Advocate General of Maharashtra and
Mr. T. Krishna Rao on behalf of their respective
States stated before us that the Planning
Commission did not make any award in respect
of Krishna Waters in 1951 nor had the Planning
Commission any authority to make the
award. Be it recorded that this was conceded
on behalf of the aforesaid States at the tune
when the Issues were framed and accordingly no
Issue was raised on the question whether the
Planning Commission made an award in 1951
regarding Krishna waters and whether the
Planning Commission had any authority to make
the award."
Mysore is not estopped from denying the existence and
validity of the agreement:
Andhra Pradesh contended that the statements of Mysore
in the above mentioned documents show that the Mysore
113 Government acted upon and treated the agreement of 1951 as
binding and was, therefore, estopped from denying it. We
are unable to accept this contention. It is to be
observed that none of the documents contained any
representation by the Mysore Government that there was a
concluded and binding agreement in 1951 concerning the
allocation of the Krishna waters, nor did any party act
upon such a representation. Instead of stating that there
was such an agreement, all the documents referred to an
award made by the Planning Commission in July 1951. It
was because there was no concluded agreement in 1951,
that the idea had gained ground that the Planning
Commission had made an award
in 1951 concerning the Krishna waters. Moreover, all
these documents were written after 1956. In the
meantime, extensive territoral changes in the Krishna
basin had been made by the Andhra State Act, 1953 as
from the 1st October, 1953 and by the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956 as from the 1st November,
1956 and Mysore had acquired large territories in the
Krishna basin. In this changed situation, Mysore could
not have intended to affirm the memorandum of
agreement prepared on the basis of conditions prevailing
in July 1951.
Andhra Pradesh relied on the following passage in the
judgment of Viscount Maugham in Lady Naas v.
Westminister Bank Ltd., 1940 A.C. 366, at 373:—
"It is clear beyond doubt that a party who
knowingly takes the benefit of a deed is bound by it 114
although he has not executed it." But Andhra Pradesh
does not show that Mysore took any benefit under the
agreement of 1951. At the earliest opportunity, Mysore
repudiated the agreement and refused t o abide by it.
Dehors the agreement, Mysor e was en t i t l ed t o
ut il i se t he wat ers of t h e Kri s hn a ri ver s yst e m, -
an d i t c ont i n u ed t o u t i l i s e t h em. Th e ar g u m en t
t h a t Mys o r e is bound by the agreement of 1951
although it had not ratified the agreement must fail.
Conclusion that Mysore is not bound by the alleged
agreement of July 1951 :
We are satisfied on the evidence that there was no
concluded oral agreement on the 27th July, 1951 regarding
the allocation of the Krishna waters as alleged. Mysore
was not a party to any agreement reached at the conference,
nor did Mysore subsequently ratify the agreement.
Mysore did not act upon and treat the agreement as
binding and is not precluded or estopped from denying the
agreement. Mysore is not in any way bound by the alleged
agreement.
The other State Governments ratified the agreement, but
the question is whether they are bound by the agreement in
the absence of any ratification by the Mysore Government.
It is not the case of Andhra Pradesh that the other State
Governments entered into any agreement other than the 115
agreement set forth in the memorandum of agreement.
 37
Memorandum of agreement could not take effect
according to its tenor unless Mysore ratified it:
The memorandum of agreement apportioned the
dependable flow of the Krishna river system and allocated
specific quantities of water to four States. The allocation
implied that each State would utilise the quantity of water
allotted to it and no more. The memorandum as drafted could
not take effect according to its terms unless Mysore
accepted the allotment and bound itself to utilise the quantity
of water allocated to it and no more. The rights and
obligations of the other States were inextricably mixed up
with those of Mysore and could not be separately enforced.
The other States ratified the agreement on the under-
standing that Mysore also would ratify it :
All the four States were invited to the conference and
participated in its deliberations. A memorandum of
agreement was drawn up and all the four States were
requested to ratify it. The States of Bombay, Hyderabad
and Madras ratified the agreement. As ratification by
Mysore was necessary, repeated requests for ratification
were sent by the Planning Commission to Mysore.( 24)
Mysore was a necessary party to the agreement as
116
drafted. The other States could not have intended to affirm
or ratify an agreement to which Mysore was not a party. The
inference is irresistible that they ratified the agreement on the
understanding that Mysore also would ratify it. The
consideration for which they ratified the agreement and
promised to abide by it was that all the States including
Mysore also would ratify the agreement and be bound by
it.
Law.—The law on the subject is well settled. In
Jainarian Ram Lundia v. Surajmall Sagarmul 1949
24 See office notes in Planning Commission file APDK IX, pp. 45, 46, 48, 50, 52.
F.C.R. 379, at p. 392, B. K. Mukherjea J., observed: "When
parties enter into an agreement on the clear understanding
that some other persons should be a party to it, obviously
no perfected contract is possible so long as this other person
does not join the agreement. This would be the position in
law apart from any rule of equity." After referring to Lady
Naas v. Westminister Bank Limited 1940 A. C. 366, in which
case the House of Lords discussed the broad principles upon
which equity would relieve a party from his obligations
under an unconditional deed which took effect at law, he
observed "and in order that a relief might be claimed in
equity, it is necessary to prove that substantial injustice
would result if the deed is enforced unconditionally against
the executing parties. Relief, therefore, could be given in 117
those cases where the strict enforcement of law would lead
to the executing parties being saddled with heavier liability
than they otherwise would incur or would make the tran-
saction substantially different from what it would have been if
all the parties had joined it".
CONCLUSION.—As already stated, the States of
Bombay, Hyderabad and Madras ratified the agreement on
the clear understanding that the State of Mysore would
also join the agreement and would ratify it. As Mysore did
not ratify the agreement, there was no operative and
concluded agreement and the ratifications by the three States
were wholly ineffective. This is the position in law apart
from any rule of equity. The ratifying States or their
successor States are not bound at law by any agreement and
they need not seek any equitable relief.
Answer to Issue I.—In view of the above conclusions, no
other question under Issue I need be decided. We hold that
there was no concluded and binding agreement regarding
the allocation of the waters of the river Krishna as
alleged. Issue I is answered accordingly.
 118 Annexures to Chapter IV.

NOTES BY THE CENTRAL WATER AND POWER COMMISSION ON THE UTILISATION OF

SUPPLIES IN THE KRISHNA VALLEY

Average annual runoff and dependable yield.

Discharge observations of the river Krishna are available

for Bezwada site in Madras for the year 1895 to 1945
i.e., for 51 years. Actual yearly runoff are given in Minor Works 8
statement 'A'. The mean annual runoff comes to 1957 T. TOTAL 90
M. Cft. This, however, is available in 21 years only out of
54 and hence cannot be taken as dependable supply. Mysore
Runoff of 1800, 1700 and 1450 are available in 30
Bhadra reservoir 57
years, 37 years and 44 years respectively. Hence Tunga Anicut 11.5
dependable supplies at Bezwada excluding present
TOTAL 68.5
utilisation above may be taken as 1450 T. M. Cft. This
tallies with the figure worked out by Hyderabad. The
Madras figure of 2000 is too high. Madras
Tungabhadra 65.0
The existing utilisation of supplies above Bezwada is GRAND TOTAL 279.5
120 in Bombay, 90 in Hyderabad, 30 in Mysore and 10
or say (B) 280
in Madras making a total of 250. Hence total dependable
supply in the river basin may be taken as Water available for future Projects
1700 T. M. Cft. 120
Total of A and B above=450+280=730 T.M.cft This
leaves 1700—730=970 T.M.Cft. only for future schemes.

119
Existing Utilisation T.M. Projects under investigation or contemplation
Bombay Bombay T.M.Cft.
All minor . . . . . . 120
works . Hyderabad Koyna Irrigation and Hydro-Electric (I Stage) 127
Minor Works . . . . . . 90 Koyna Irrigation and Hydro-Electric (II 46
. Mysore Ghataprabha Valley . . . . 70
Vanivilas Sagar . . . . . . 30 New Khadakvasla dam . . . . 33
. Madras Kukadi Irrigation project . . . . 28
K.C. Canal . . . . . . 10 Asoga Reservoir . . . . . 25
. . Vir dam . . . . . . 14
Bezwada . . . . . 200 Bhima storage . . . . . 12
Anicut . TOTAL (A) . . . . 450 Other projects . . . . . 25
Projects under construction TOTAL 380

Bombay
Ghataprabha Left Bank Canal 15 Hyderabad
. . Weir
Mulchir . . . . . . . . 8 Upper Krishna . . . . . . 165
Radha Nagri . . . . . . 11.3 Bhimana . . . . . . 80
Other minor works . . . . 21.7 Lower Krishna . . . . . 240
. TOTAL . . . 56.0 Medium and minor projects 65
Hyderabad Extension of irrigation on Tungabhadra 35

Tungabhadra . . . . . . 65 TOTAL 585

Rajolibunda . . . . . . 17
.
38
 39

121
Mysore 1903-04 2952 67.89
T.M.Cft. 1904-05 1456 33.53
Bhadra anicut 5 1905-06 1131 26.01
Vedavathi 1 1906-07 1643 37.78
Other works 19.5 1907-08 1911 43.95
1908-09 2293 52.73
TOTAL 25.5 1909-10 1746 40.05
Madras 1910-11 2171 49.93
1911-12 1135 26.10
Krishna Pennar Project 825 1912-13 1907 43``.86
Pulichintala Project 100 1913-14 1445 33.23
Tungabhadra High Level Canal. 25 1914-15 2750 63.25
TOTAL 950 1915-16 2250 51.75
1916-17 3487 80.20
GRAND TOTAL 1940 1917-18 2569 60.08
1918-19 808 19.84
Hence the total demand on the waters of the Krishna 1919-20 1857 42.71
considering projects proposed or under contemplation is 1920-21 1372 31.55
1921-22 1784 41.03
1940. 5 T.M.Cft., as against 970 T.M.Cft., the water
1922-23 1730 39.79
potential remaining after catering to the demands by works 1923-24 2043 46.98
already under operation arid construction. The future demand 1924-25 1936 44.52
is thus twice the availability of water in the basin. 1925-26 1819 41.83
1926-27 1953 44.91
A statement 'B' showing quantum of proposed utilisation, 1927-28 2054 47.24
power installed and proposed irrigation with capital costs 1928-29 1901 43.73
etc. is attached. 1929-30 1627 37.42
1930-31 1927 44.22
1931-32 2508 57.68
122 STATEMENT 'A' 1932-33 2472 56.85
Statement showing annual run off of Krishna at Bezwada 1933-34 2524 58.05
anicut excluding existing utilisation.
1934-35 1794 41.26
Year T.M. M. Acre ft 1935-36 1600 36.80
Cft. 1936-37 1652 37.92
1894-95 . . . . . 1809 41.60 1937-38 3336 76.58
1895-96 . . . . . 2085 47.95 1938-39 2169 49.76
1896-97 . . . . . 2320 53.36 1939-40 1713 39.32
1897-98 . . . . . 2481 57.06 1940-41 1903 43.69
1898-99 . . . . . 2271 52.22 1941-42 1310 30.13
1899-1900 . . . . . 854 19.64 1942-43 1610 37.03
1900-01 . . . . . 2577 59,24 1943-44 1700 39.10
1901-02 . . . . . 1822 49.90 1944-45 2000 46.00
. 1732 39.83
1902-03 . . . . .
51 years average 1957 Average 45.01
1902-03 ......................................... 1732 39.83

Statement 'B'
123
Krishna Basin Projects
Statement showing quantum of proposed utilisation, power installed, proposed irrigation and cost.

Name of Project Total demand Proposed irriga- Proposed Cost in lakhs Return (%)
T.M. Cft. tion (acres) power to be of rupees
1 2 3 installed
4 5 6
Bombay
Koyna H.E. and Irrigation Project 4,40,000 6,00,000 9278
Other Project . . . . 17
Ghataprabha Valley . . . . 70 6,00,000 2455 1.5
New Khadakvasla Dam . . . 33 1,40,000 750 4.5
Kukadi Irrigation Project . . 28 1,30,000 600 4.2
Asoga Reservoir . . . . 25 74,200 472 5.0
Other Projects . . . . 42 2,34,350 1322
Other I Class works . . . . 9
207 11,78,550 6,00,000 5599
1 M of I&P/73—7
 40

1 2 3 4 5 6

Hyderabad
Upper Krishna . . . . . . 165 7,34,000 80,000 3,800 6.08
Bhima . . . . . . 80 2,74,000 1,200 4.50
Lower Krishna . . . . . . 240 9,00,000 80,000 4,800 5.90
Medium and minor project 65 2,50,000 .. .. ..
. . . 550 21,58,000 1,60,000 9,800

Mysore
Bhadra Anicut 5 .. .. ..
. .
Vedavathi. . . . 1 Figures not
Other works . . . . . . 19.5
25.5
Madras
Krishna-Pennar Project 825 30,00,000 2,50,000 15,750 4.5
. . . . (1 crop)
12,00,000
(II crop)
Other Projects
Pulichintala . . . . . . 100 6,00,000
Tungabhadra High Level Canal . . . 25
125

124 Summary record of discussions at the Inter-State MADRAS

Conference on the utilisation of Krishna and Godavari Waters
Hon'ble Shri M. Bhakthavatsalam, Minister, P.W.D. Shri
held in the Committee Room of the Planning Commission,
New Delhi, on 27th and 28th July, 1951. T. M. S. Mani, I.C.S., Secretary, P.W.D.
Shri A. R. Venkatacharya, I.S.E., Chief Engineer,
Planning Commission Irrigation.
Shri V. T. Krishnamachari, Member-Chairman. Shri N. Padmanabha Iyer, I.S.E., Superintending
Engineer.
Shri G. R. Garg, Chief of Natural Resources
Division. Shri M. D. Narasimhachari, Deputy Chief
Engineer.
Shri K. S. S. Murthy, Asstt. Executive Engineer, Natural
Resources Division.
HYDERABAD
Hon'ble Shri N. V. Gadgil, Minister for works,
Production and Supply attended by invitation. Hon'ble Shri M. K. Vellodi, Chief Minister.

BOMBAY Hon'ble Nawab Zain Yar Jung, Minister, P.W.D.

Hon'ble Dr. Jivraj Mehta, Minister, P.W.D. Shri Papaiah, Chief Engineer.
Hon'ble Shri Naik Nimbalkar, Development Mr. Jaffar Ali, Superintending Engineer. 125
Minister.
MADHYA PRADESH
Shri G. V. Bedekar, I.C.S., Secretary, P.W.D. Shri
Hon'ble Shri R. Agnibhoj, Minister, P.W.D.
Mirchandani, Chief Engineer, Electricity. Shri
MYSORE
Champhekar, I.S.E., Chief Engineer, Irrigation,
Hon'ble K. C. Reddy, Chief Minister (attended on 27th
only).
 41
CENTRAL WATER AND POWER COMMIS-
SION
Shri A. N. Khosla, Chairman.
Shri Gadkary, Member.
Shri Dr. K. L. Rao, Director.
Shri C. S. Parthasarthy, Asstt. Engineer.
Opening the discussion Shri V. T. Krishnamachari
stated the broad principles on which schemes for
irrigation and power development should be selected for
inclusion in the Plan. He mentioned that only projects,
which had been thoroughly investigated and found
technically, economically and financially justifiable,
should be included in our Five Year Plan.
The object of the conference was to discuss the
utilisation of supplies in the Krishna and Godavari river
basins so that an assessment could be made of the
relative merits of projects proposed for inclusion in the
second part of the Five Year Plan. He referred to the
technical paper already circulated showing the supplies
available in these rivers. In considering the issues placed
before the meeting, two points of view should be
reconciled. The first was the need from an all India
126
point of view for increasing available food supplies within
the shortest possible time and on the most economic
basis. The Irrigation Commission reporting over 50 years
ago emphasised the need regarding irrigation development
as a national-all-India-question. This was even more
important now than it was in the past. India's food
probl em can be solved only on such a basis. The
shortage of power in the Bombay City and
surrounding areas should also be regarded as an urgent
problem. On the other hand, regional development was
important, especially the development of backward
regions, and could not b e i gn or ed. He w as con fi d en t
t hat an agree - ment could be reached reconciling these
two considerations in a practical manner which would be
equitable to all areas concerned.
2. Shri G. R. Garg, Chief of Natural Resources
Division, then gave a brief review of the existing
utilisation of supplies in these river basins and the
contemplated utilisation based on the technical note
circulated by the Planning Commission.
Shri Venkatacharya, Chief Engineer, Madras, stated
that the discharge figures of Krishna River, which
had been worked out in the note, were under-estimated by
about 8%. Shri Champhekar, Chief Engineer,
Bombay, stated that the regeneration supplies in the
river basin had not been taken into account. He
thought that nearly 25 per cent to 40 per cent of the 127
waters would perhaps be available as regeneration
supplies. These points were noted.
3. Hon'ble Shri N. V. Gadgil drew attention to the
extremely backward condition of certain districts of
Bombay State, Poona, Sholapur, Bijapur, etc. He
specially stressed the needs of the Karnatic areas.
The development of these regions depended on the
availability of power and irrigation and should have
high priority. Their needs should be provided for
Shri M. K. Vellodi, Chief Minister of Hyderabad,
desired that certain broad principles of priority should be
laid down by the conference, so that details could be
worked out later on.
4. Shri V. T. Krishnamachari mentioned that apart
from power supply projects in the Plan to meet
existing deficits, irrigation had been given priority
over power projects. The Planning Commission in
their draft Five Year Plan has suggested a Committee
for selecting projects for inclusion in the second part
of the Plan, and set out the principles which should
regulate the inclusion of projects in the Plan. No
doubt certain States had some initial advantages—
trained staffs and long experience of irrigation works
—but the interests of other regions could not be
neglected.
Hon'ble Shri K. C. Reddy, Chief Minister of
Mysore, stated that so far as the Krishna River basin was
concerned, Mysore had certain agreement with Madras 128
and Hyderabad and the new agreement, that might be
arrived at, should take note of the existing agreement.
5. Shri Rameswar Agnibhoj referred to the
Wainganga Project of Madhya Pradesh. It was sug
gested to him that his Government should request the
Central Water and Power Commission to complete the
investigations so that negotiations might be undertaken
with the adjoining States for utilising the power pro-
prosed to be generated.
6. Shri T. M. S. Mani of Madras suggested that
the waters of the river basins should be distributed to
the various States on a percentage basis so that every
one would be affected equally in good or bad year.
7. Thereupon the Conference adjourned to enable
the engineers to arrive at an agreement about the
water of Krishna.
8. The Conference reassembled at 4 P.M. The
engineers reported a tentative agreement regarding the
 42

waters of the Krishna Hon'ble Shri N. V. Gadgil stated below, are hereby allocated to the respective States
suggested that the percentage adopted by the engineers :—
for Bombay should be increased. After discussion it
was agreed that in the case of the Krishna
T M Cft
waters, a different set of proportions should be assumed
for discharges above 1,000 T M Cft. Bombay 176
Hyderabad 180
Saturday the 28th July, 1951. Mysore 98.5
Madras 290
9. The engineers met at 10 am. to discuss the 744.5
distribution of waters in the Godavari Basin and arrived
129 at a tentative set of proportions.
3. The balance of flow for new projects, after meeting
10 The Conference assembled at 11.30 am. It the above allocations works out to 970.5 T.M.Cft. For
considered proposals made by the engineers regarding the purposes of allocation, this has been taken as 1,000 T M
Godavari The engineers were requested to prepare a Cft. For this balance upto 1,000 T.M.Cft. the allocations
memorandum of agreement and the Conference adjourned are made as hereunder:—
till 3 30 p m

11. The Conference reassembled at 3.30 p.m. and Per cent T. M.

proceeded to consider the draft memorandum sentence by Bombay Cft 24 240
sentence As regards Secti on I, Hon 'ble Shri N. V. Hyderabad 28 280
Gadgil stated that the proportions for the Krishna Per cent T M
waters worked out on the previous day were not equitable Cft
as they would prejudice the development of the 1 10 131
economically backward areas he mentioned and these areas Mysore (Provisional)
were entitled to a larger share. After some discussion in 47 470
Madras
which the representatives of Madras, Hyderabad and Bombay
took part, the conference agreed to a modification of the
proportions of distribution for the Krishna waters—
For balance flow m excess of 1,000 T.M.Cft
Bombay's share being increased by 4 per cent, 2 per cent being
mentioned above, the allocations will be as follows
surrendered by Hyderabad and 2 per cent by Madras.
— Per cent
12 The basis of distribution for the Krishna and the Bombay 30
Godavari waters agreed to at the conference is shown in
Hyderabad 30
the annexed memorandum of agreement as finally agreed to
by the conference. 1 (Provisional)
Mysore 39
130 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Madras
I.—THE KRISHNA
The allocation to Mysore may have to be slightly adjusted
The dependable annual flow in the Krishna basin based to the extent of additional 1 per cent as a result of further
on the recorded gaugings at Vijayawada is accepted as engineering scrutiny. This addition will come out of the
1715 T.M.Cft. This figure may have to be increased to share of Madras.
allow for any omissions in respect of existing utilisations
in any State.
4. The above allocations are subject to the condition
that the diversion of supplies across the western ghats for
Shri Venkatachari's statement that the actual flow will
the Koyna Project will be limited to 67.5 T.M.Cft.
be in excess of the recorded gauged flow by 8 per cent is
noted.

2 The existing utilisations (subject to corrections II—THE GODAVARI

mentioned in para I) plus flows required for projects
under construction in the concerned States, as The dependable annual flow in the Godavari basin based
on the recorded gaugings at Dowlaishwaram is taken as
2,500 T.M.Cft

2 The existing utilisations plus supplies required for

projects under, construction in the concerned States
 43

as stated below are hereby allocated to the respective III.—GENERAL

132 States:—
The allocations in the case of the Krishna and the
Percent T.M. Cft. Godavari have been made on an annual basis. The
new utilisations have to be so adjusted as not to inter-fere
Bombay . . . . . . 57
with the existing daily utilisation for existing works and 133
Hyderabad . . . . . . 208
agreed utilisation for new works.
Madhya Pradesh . . . . . . 30
Madras . . . . . . 300
2. The use of water passed by one State for her use
TOTAL . . 595 downstream, out of the share allocated to her and
passing through the reservoir of another State may be
3. Of the balance flow of 1,905 T.M.Cft. (say used by the latter State, solely for power purposes, pro
1,900) which remains available after meeting the vided that such quantities are not impounded in their
allocations in para 2, the allocations to the various passage through the reservoir for more than the period
States will be as below:— agreed upon between the Governments concerned,
which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Per cent T.M.Cft.
Bombay 3 57 3. The allocations made under parts I and II shall
.Hyderabad
. . . . 26 494 be reviewed after 25 years.
Madhya Pradesh 24 456
Madras 47 893 4. No major project shall be undertaken for cons
. . . . . truction by any State unless it has been fully investiga
1900
ted and necessary detailed estimates have been
prepared, and duly examined.
These percentages will apply whether the supplies are
in excess or short of the dependable flow assumed above.
 134
Disputes concerning the Tungabhadra
The Tungabhadra river and river valley :—Prior to 1947,
the river Tungabhadra had its catchment area in the
States of Mysore and Hyderabad and the Provinces of
Madras and Bombay. Small portions of its catchment area
lay within the States of Sangli, Sandur, Savanur, Miraj
(Senior), Miraj (Junior) and Banaganapalle.
Before Independence, about 11,636 square miles of the
Tungabhadra catchment fell within the old Mysore State.
Now, 22,011 square miles of the catchment lie within
Mysore and 5,563 square miles lie within Andhra Pradesh.
Formerly, the united Tungabhadra after the junction of
the Tunga and the Bhadra ran in Mysore for a length of
40 miles, formed the boundary between Mysore and
Bombay for a length of 35 miles, the boundary between
Madras and Bombay for 62 miles, and the boundary
between Madras and Hyderabad for the next 192 miles.
The Tungabhadra now runs for 237 miles in Mysore,
forms the boundary between Mysore and Andhra Pradesh
for 36 miles and runs for the next 57 miles in Andhra
Pradesh.
AAgreements concerning Tungabhadra waters :
135
From time to time there were the following agreements
concerning the Tungabhadra waters:—
(a) agreement of 1892 between Madras and
Mysore (1);
(b) agreement of 1933 between Madras and
Mysore (2);
(c) agreement of June 1944 between Madras
and Hyderabad (3);
(d) agreement of July 1944 between Madras
and Mysore ( 4);
(1) APK Il pp. 144—159
(2) APK II pp. 160—163
(3) APK II pp. 164—167
(4) APK II pp. 168—174
(5) MYDK II pp. 401—
402
44
(6) APDK V pp. 31-35.
CHAPTER V
(e) supplemental agreement of December 1945
among Madras, Mysore and Hyderabad (5);
and
(f) supplemental agreement of 1946 among
Madras, Mysore and Hyderabad (6).
Copies of the agreements are appended to this Report.
Agreements of 1892 and 1933, Issue IV :—The
agreements of 1892 and 1933 between the Governments of
Madras and Mysore imposed restrictions concerning
irrigation works on the Tungabhadra, the Tunga, the Bhadra,
the Vedavathi and their tributaries and several rivers outside 136
the Krishna basin. The agreements so far as they related to
the rivers outside the Krishna basin are not the subject-matter
of these proceedings.
The effect of clauses 10 and 11 of the agreement of
July 1944 between Madras and Mysore was that the
agreements of 1892 and 1933 were abrogated so far as they
related to the Tungabhadra, the Tunga and the Bhadra and
they continued to subsist so far as they related to the
Vedavathi only. This is conceded by all the concerned
parties.
Mysore contended that in the events which
happened after July 1944, the two agreements had wholly
ceased to be operative. Andhra Pradesh disputed this
contention. Accordingly, the following issue was
raised:—
Issue IV: "Are the Agreements of 1892 and 1933
so far as they relate to the river Krishna and
its tributaries subsisting and, if so, with what
effect? Did they survive on the merger of the
princely State of Mysore in the Republic of
India? Have they ceased to be operative on the
reorganisation of States?" Maharashtra is nott 137
interested in this issue.
 45

On the 2nd September, 1971, the States of Mysore and
Andhra Pradesh filed the following agreed statement
regarding Issue IV and protection to irrigation works in
their respective territories in the Vedavathi sub-basin:—
"It is agreed between the State of Mysore and the
State of Andhra Pradesh that the State of
Mysore will not put up any new work on
the streams mentioned in Schedule (1) within
the limits shown in the said Schedule and
marked in the map* appended herewith,
without the previous consent of Andhra
Pradesh to protect the irrigation interests
under the existing i rrigation works in
Andhra Pradesh and similarly it is agreed
that the State of Andhra Pradesh will not
put up any new work on the streams men-
tion ed i n S ch edul e (2) wit hin the l i mit s
shown in the said Schedule and marked in the
map* appended herewith, without the previous
consent of Mysore State to protect the
irrigation interests under the existing irrigation
works in Mysore State.
It is further agreed between the State of Mysore 138
and the State of Andhra Pradesh that the
State of Mysore will not put up any new
construction on Suvarnamukhi river so as to
affect the supply of Agali tank in Andhra
Pradesh for the irrigation of an ayacut of
884 acres, the supplies for which are drawn
from the Agali Anicut in Mysore State.
Having regard to this concession the parties are
agreed that the Tribunal need not decide
issue No. IV."

139
SCHEDULE- 1
List of streams on which no new constructions should be undertaken by the State of Mysore without the previous consent of
Andhra Pradesh
Sl. Name of the Stream or Catchment Location Limits within which no new construction should be
N In the undertaken by Mysore without the previous consent
o Map of Andhra Pradesh
1. Hagari (Vedavathi) . . . . A From Vanivilas Sagar in Mysore upto Bhairavanithippa
. Dam in Andhra Pradesh.
2. Dodderi tank halla (Garanihalla) . . B 4 1/2 miles up-stream of confluence with Hagari.
.
3. Talak tank halla (Garanihalla) . . C From the Salem-Bellary road bridge over this stream
. upto confluence with Hagari.
4. Chinnahagari . . . . . D Upto 16 miles upstream from Mysore — Andhra Pradesh
. boundary.
5. Amarapuram tank catchmen . . . E Catchment of Amarapuram tank in Mysore State.
.
6. Virapasamudram tank catchment . . F Catchment of Virapasamudram tank in Mysore
7. .Yeradkere tank catchment . . . G State.
Catchment of Yeradkere tank in Mysore State.
8. .Rangasamudram tank catchment . . H Catchment of Rangasamudram tank in Mysore State.
. .. .
9. Nagalapuram .tank .catchment . . I Catchment of Nagalapuram tank in Mysore State.
.

140 SCHEDULE-2
List of Streams on which no New constructions should be undertaken by the State of Andhra Pradesh, without the previous
consent of Mysore
Sl. Name of the Stream Location Limits within which no new construction should be
No in the undertaken by Andhra Pradesh without the previous
. Map consent of Mysore State
1 2 3 4
1. Madalur Doddakere nala J Entire catchment of the nala in Andhra Pradesh.
2. . .
Madalur . .
Gidagana halli Katte nala . . K Entire catchment of the nala in Andhra Pradesh.
3. Doddabanagere Doddakere nala . . . L Entire catchment of the nala in Andhra Pradesh.
4. Dharmapur tank nala . . . . . . M Entire catchment of the nala in Andhra Pradesh.
5. Parasurampur Doddakere nala . . . N Entire catchment of the nala in Andhra Pradesh.
*See Map II in Volume IV of the Report.
 46

1 2 3 4

6. Kadehoda Achuvali kere nala . . . . O Entire catchment of the nala in Andhra Pradesh.
7. .Parasurampura tank nala . . . . . P Entire catchment of the nala in Andhra Pradesh.
8. Gowripura Palyadakere nala . . . . Q Entire catchment of the nala in Andhra Pradesh.
9. .
Jajur tank nala . . . . . . . . R Entire catchment of the nala in Andhra Pradesh.
10. .
Thippareddihally Kyatanakere nala . . . S Entire catchment of the nala in Andhra Pradesh.
11. .Oblapur tank nala . . . . . . . T Entire catchment of the nala in Andhra Pradesh.
12. .Hagari
. (Vedavathi) . . . . . . . U Below Bhairavanithippa Dam upto Andhra Pradesh-Mysore
. border.
13. Chinnahagari V From Mysore-Andhra Pradesh border upto its confluence
Vedavathi (Hagari).

141 On the 23rd October, 1972, the States of Mysore and
Andhra Pradesh filed the following supplemental agreed
statement concerning issue IV:—
"The State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Mysore
submit that in the agreement of 2nd September,
1971, filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal it is
specifically stated that the parties agreed that
this Hon'ble Tribunal need not decide Issue
No. IV. In view of this the validity or the effect
of the agreement s of 1892 and 1933 need
not be decided in these proceedings. The State of
Andhra Pradesh and the State of Mysore do
not rely on the agreements of 1892 and 1933 for
any relief in these proceedings or any other
proceedings relating to the allocation of the
Krishna waters."
Having regard to the above concessions we do not decide
Issue IV. The States of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh jointly
pray that the Tribunal should give suitable directions
regarding protection to irrigation works in the Vedavathi
sub-basin in accordance with the agreed statement of
142 September 2, 1971. The State of Maharashtra does not
oppose this prayer.
On a consideration of all relevant materials before us
we propose to direct that the regulations set forth in
Annexure 'A' to our final Order regarding protection to the
irrigation works in the respective territories of the States of
Mysore (now known as Karnataka) and Andhra Pradesh in
the Vedavathi sub-basin be observed and carried out.
Agreements of June 1944 and July 1944 and
Supplemental agreements of December 1945 and 1946
[Issue III and IV (A)] :
In June 1944, the Governments of Madras and
Hyderabad entered into an agreement for the partial
utilisation of the Tungabhadra waters. The immediate
object of the agreement was to enable the two Governments
to start the construction of the Tungabhadra Project at
Mallapuram. The necessity of a storage project on the
Tungabhadra for purposes of irrigation was felt for a long
time(7).
In July 1944, the Governments of Madras and Mysore
entered into an agreement in regard to sharing of the waters
of the Tungabhadra river. The imme-diate object of the
agreement of July, 1944 was to enable the Mysore
Government to construct the multipurpose project at
Lakkavali on the Bhadra river.
The project was under investigation for a long time and 143
took its final shape in 1939(8). Part I of the agreement
related to the sharing of the waters of Tungabhadra. Part
II of the agreement related to the royalty payable to the
Government of Madras for use of the waters of the
Cauvery at Sivasamudram. The agreement so far as it
related to Sivasamudram royalty is not the subject matter of
these proceedings.
In December 1945 and 1946, the Governments of
Hyderabad, Mysore and Madras entered into supplemental
agreements modifying the agreements of June 1944 and July
1944 in certain respects.
On the 6th January, 1970, Counsel for Andhra
Pradesh stated: "Andhra is not claiming any relief for
past breaches of 1944 agreement." Accordingly, no issue
was raised on the question of breaches of the July 1944
agreement.
Andhra Pradesh claimed that it was entitled to enforce
the agreements of June 1944 and July 1944 against
Mysore. Mysore contended that the agreements were not
enforceable. Accordingly, the following issues were
raised:—
Issue III : Is the agreement of July 1944 valid and
subsisting and, if so, with what effect?

(7) Report of the Tungabhadra Project Low Level Canal Scheme APPK XVIII pp. 1—13.
(8) Bhadra Reservoir Project Report MYPKVI p. 11.
 47
144 Was it invalid as Bombay, Sangli and
Hyderabad were not parties to it ? Was it rendered
ineffective by the Supplemental agreement of
1945 ? Did it survive on the merger of the
Princely State of Mysore in the Republic of
India ? Has it ceased to be operative on the
reorganisation of States ?
Issue 1V(A) : Did the agreement of June 1944 survive
on the :
(i) coming into force of the Indian Independence
Act;
(ii) coming into force of the Constitution of
India ; and
(iii) merger of the Princely State of Hyderabad
in the Republic of India ?
Has the agreement ceased to be operative on the
reorganisation of States ?
On October 23, 1972, the State of Mysore and Andhra
Pradesh filed the following agreed statement concerning
Issues III and IV(A):
"Issues III and IV(A) have been raised relating to
the waters of the Tungabhadra river. The States of
Andhra Pradesh and Mysore are agreed that in
the events that have happened it is not necessary
to decide these issues as this Hon'ble Tribunal has
145 general jurisdiction in the matter of equitable
distribution of waters of the river Krishna
(including the waters of the Tungabhadra river)
between the States of Andhra Pradesh,
Maharashtra and Mysore. The States of Andhra
Pradesh and Mysore accordingly pray that
this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased not to
answer the said Issues III and IV(A)".
The State of Maharashtra does not oppose this prayer.
Accordingly, we have to make equitable distribution of the
waters of the river Krishna including the waters of the
Tungabhadra in the exercise of our general jurisdiction and
we are not called upon to decide Issues III and IV(A).
Supersession of older agreements concerning the Tun-
gabhadra waters
The State of Mysore contended that the agreements of
1892, 1933, June 1944 and July 1944 were invalid and/or
had ceased to be operative, while the state of
Andbra Pradesh argued that they were valid and still
I M of I & p/73—8
operative. Even assuming that these agreements were valid
and still subsisting, they as also the supplemental agreements
of December 1945 and 1946 have now lost all vitality
and should be superseded in view of the equitable allocation
of the Krishna waters including the Tungabhadra waters and
the agreed statements filed by the parties before, us
from time to time.
Accordingly, our final order will contain the following 146
directions:—
"This order will supersede:
(i) the agreement of 1892 between Madras and
Mysore so far as it related to the Krishna
river system;
(ii) the agreement of 1933 between Madras and
Mysore so far as it related to the Krishna
river system;
(iii) the agreement of June 1944 between
Madras and Hyderabad;
(iv) the agreement of July 1944 between
Madras and Mysore in so far as it related to
the Krishna river system;
(v) the supplemental agreement of December 1945
among Madras, Mysore and Hyderabad;
(vi) the supplemental agreement of 1946 among
Madras, Mysore and Hyderabad."
On the 17th August, 1973, the States of Andhra Pradesh
and Mysore through their respective counsel stated that,
without prejudice to their respective contentions, they
agreed to the above order. Learned Counsel for the State
of Maharashtra stated that the State of Maharashtra did not
object to the incorporation of the above clause in our final
Order.
147
Tungabhadra Project
The Tungabhadra Project consists of the following
components:—
(a) masonry dam across the Tungabhadra river
near Mallapuram for impounding 133
T.M.C. of water (gross);
(b) Left Bank Low Level Main Canal 127 miles
long with 14 miles branch canal at tail and
Left Bank High Level Canal 9.5 miles long,
all in the district of Raichur;
 48
(c) Right Bank Low Level Main Canal 217
miles in length in Bellary and Kurnool Dis
tricts ;
(d) Right Bank High Level Canal 116 miles in
length running through Bellary and Anant-
pur Districts in the first stage and extending
to the Cuddapah District in the second
stage ;
(e) net work of distributaries emanating from
the canals ;
(f) power house on right side of the dam ;
(g) power house on Right Bank Low Level
Canal at Hampi; and
(h) power house on left side of the dam at
Munirabad.
The agreement of June 1944 enabled the Madras and
Hyderabad Governments to start construction of the
Tungabhadra Project after the conclusion of the Second
148 World War. The Project came under the purview of three
successive Five Year Plans.
The Project was intended to irrigate areas on the
left and right banks of the river Tungabhadra. In
1944, the left side fell within the dominion of the
Nizam of Hyderabad. The right side fell within the
Province of Madras in British India.
Upon the Constitution coming into force in 1950, the
States of Hyderabad and Madras respectively continued to be
in charge of the left and right sides of the Project.
On the passing of the Andhra State Act, 1953, as from
the 1st October 1953, the Madras part of the project was
divided between the States of Mysore and Andhra. Half of
the dam, the right side headworks and the Right Bank
Canal up to the 96th mile fell within the limits of Mysore
State and the remainder of the canal fell within Andhra
State. The main canal after it entered Andhra fed branches
which re-entered Mysore. The left side of the project
continued to be in charge of the State of Hyderabad.
Upon the coming into force of the States Reorganisation
Act, 1956, as from the 1st November, 1956, the control
of the left side of the project became vested in the State of
Mysore..
(9)Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation and Power, Notification No. DW II-22 (129) dated the 29th September, 1953.
(10)Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation and Power, Notification No. DWVI-4(9) dated the 10th March, 1955.
Section 66 of the Andhra State Act 149
Section 66 of the Andhra State Act, 1953 made special
provisions with regard to the devolution of the rights and
liabilities of the State of Madras in relation to the
Tungabhadra Project and the administration thereof. Sub-
section (4) of section 66 authorised the President to give
directions with regard to the matters specified in the section
and, in particular, for the completion of the project and its
operation and maintenance thereafter. Only the
President can issue directions under sub-section (4) of
section 66.
Tungabhadra Board
By a notification issued on the 29th September,
1953,(9) in pursuance of sub-section (4) of section 66 of
the Andhra State Act, the President of India established the
Tungabhadra Board consisting of a Chairman appointed by
the Central Government and Chief Engineers, Irrigation and
Electricity of Andhra, Mysore and Hyderabad, as
members. Paragraph 5(1) of the notification provided :
"The Board shall take charge of and deal with, all
matters relating to works on or connected with the
Tungabhadra Project which are common to both
the States of Andhra and Mysore, but nothing in
this sub-paragraph shall be deemed to authorise
the Board to deal with any matter in respect of 150
works which relate to only one of the States or in
which only one State is interested."
The Board was given certain powers of a Chief Engineer
of Madras, but the powers of Government were to be
exercised by the Central Government. This arrangement did
not prove satisfactory. On the 10th of March, 1955(10) the
Board was reconstituted with effect from the 15th March,
1955. The reconstituted Board, which consisted of a whole-
time Chairman and four members each representing the
Government of India and the Governments of Andhra
Pradesh, Mysore and Hyderabad, was given certain powers of
a State Government.
The Tungabhadra Board was reconstituted in 1956. The
reconstituted Board consists of a Chairman and three
members each representing the Government of India.
Andhra Pradesh and Mysore.
 49
151 The Tungabhadra Board administers and controls the
right half of the dam. common portions of the Right
Bank Low Level and High Level Canals and the two
power houses on the right side. The Mysore Government
administers and controls the left half of the dam, the Left
Bank Low Level and High Level Canals and the
Munirabad Power House on the left side.
In consequence of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956,
the Hyderabad portion of the Tungabhadra Project on the
left side vested in Mysore. The existing arrangement on
the right side continued.
Tungabhadra dam(11)
The construction of the dam was inaugurated by the
Governments of Hyderabad and Madras on the 28th
February, 1945. It was decided that the work relating to
the dam would be divided into two halves, the right half to
be executed by Madras and the left half by Hyderabad,
each side undertaking the canal work within its territories.
The dam was formally opened in 1953 and completed in
1956.
152
The Tungabhadra reservoir has a number of outlets for
low level canal irrigation and power sluices, high level
canal sluices, water supply sluices and river out-fall sluices
on both left and right banks, river sluices and sluices for
existing irrigation (Raya and Basav-anna channels) on the
right bank.(12)
The water drawn through the penstocks on the right bank is
used for generation of power in the dam power house. The
tail-race water is discharged into the power canal which
runs for about 14 miles and empties into a forebay at
Hampi. The water drawn through the penstocks at the
dam power house which is in excess of the requirements
of the power canal is discharged into the river through river
outfall sluices.
The water from the forebay at Hampi is drawn through
penstocks for generation of power in the Hampi power
house. The tail-race water then joins a small tail-race
153
pond formed across the natural stream known as Gundalkeri
Vanka. Most of the tail-race water is discharged into the
Right Bank Low Level
(11) See also discussion under issue IV (B) (a) IV(B) (b) (i).
(12) KGCR Ann. IX p. 17, MY Note No. 35.
(13) Disputes concerning the Left Bank canals are dealt with under issues 11(3), IV (B) (b) (i) and V(b) (ii).
Canal through head sluices of the canal and a small portion
is discharged into the Vanka through river outfall sluices.
The Vanka joins the Tungabhadra river about 2 miles
below the regulator.
Similarly, on the left side, the water required for
irrigation is primarily drawn through penstocks and let
into the left bank main canal, the excess being surplused
to the river through river outfall sluices. It is possible to
draw the water through irrigation sluices also as a
stand-by, when power house is shut down partly or
wholly. However these are not required generally to be
operated, in view of the fact that, most of the time,
withdrawals from penstocks are sufficient for irrigation
requirements.
Left Bank Canals (13).—The left bank canals are :
(1) Left Bank Low Level Main Canal 127
miles long with 14 miles long branch canal
at tail.
(2) Left Bank High Level Canal 9.5 miles in
length. 154
Both the canals serve Raichur District of Mysore and
are under the exclusive control of the Mysore Government.
Right Bank Canals.—The Right Bank Low Level Canal
is 217 miles long and is intended to irrigate areas in
Bellary and Kurnool Districts. The jurisdiction of the
Tungabhadra Board extends upto 155 miles of the Right
Bank Low Level Canal. The rest of the Canal is in charge
of Andhra Pradesh. The construction of the Canal
commenced in February 1945 and was completed in
1957. The Canal started operation in 1953.
The Right Bank High Level Canal is 116 miles long,
the first 68 miles 6 furlongs running in Mysore and the rest
in Andhra Pradesh. Mysore and Andhra agreed to entrust
execution of the common works to the Tungabhadra
Board at a conference held on the 18th June, 1956. The
joint scheme of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh was approved by
the Planning Commission on the 3rd November, 1958.
The Board is in charge of the construction, maintenance
and operation of about 68 miles 6 furlongs of the main 155
Canal up to Mysore State limits. The rest of the main
Canal is in charge of Andhra Pradesh. Construction of the
Canal started in 1957-58. The Canal commenced
 50

operation in 1967. Construction work of the distributaries is

still under progress and is in charge of the respective State
Governments. 1 2 3 4 5
On the 22nd January, 1971, the States of Mysore and T Tungabhadra Right Mysore 17.50 -nil. 17.50
Andhra Pradesh made the following joint statement ( 14) Bank High Level
before the Tribunal:— Canal Stages I & II.

"The States of Andhra Pradesh and Mysore state — do— Andhra 32.50 nil. 32.50
that the benefits of the following projects are Pradesh
shared between the two States as mentioned
hereinbelow :—
Reservoir loss.—The annual reservoir loss of the 157
(a) Tungabhadra Project Right Bank Low Tungabhadra reservoir was estimated to be 18 T.M.C.
Level Canal. (15). Originally in 1942(16) it was contemplated that the
reservoir loss would be allocated to Madras and
Andhra Pradesh . . 24 Hyderabad in respect of their works on the left and right
sides of the reservoir in proportion to their respective
T.M.C.
draw-offs. The Tungabhadra Project scheme finally
Mysore . . . 19 formulated for execution as a joint scheme of Hyderabad and
T.M.C. Madras contemplated that the total annual reservoir loss
estimated to be 18 T.M.C. would be equally shared by the
156 (b) Tungabhadra Project Right Bank High left and right sides and, out of 9 T.M.C. to be shared by
Level Canal. the right side, the shares of Andhra Pradesh and
'Mysore would be 5.5 to 3.5 T.M.C. respectively(17). Accor-
Andhra Pradesh . . 32.5 dingly, on the 22nd January, 1971, the parties agreed that
T.M.C. the reservoir loss of 9 T.M.C. in respect of the Right Bank 158
Mysor . . . 17.5 Low Level and High Level Canals would be shared as
T.M.C. follows : Andhra Pradesh 5.5 T.M.C., Mysore 3.5 T.M.C.
It was also common case before us in the list of projects
Reservoir losses in respect of the above canals on the filed on the 7th May 1971(18) that the evaporation loss of 9
T.M.C. under the Tungabhadra Left Bank Low Level Canal
right side are shared as mentioned below :—
should be protected and such protection has been given by us
Andhra Pradesh 5.5 T.M.C. accordingly.
Mysore 3.5 T.M.C."
Counsel for the State of Mysore while closing his argument
on the 23rd August, 1973 urged that the evaporation loss of
On the 7th May, 1971, all the States filed an agreed
the reservoir could be debited equally to the left and right
statement that the following projects and the quantum of
sides provided the utilisations were also ensured to be
their utilisation and evaporation losses as mentioned
equal on either side. He argued that the sharing of 9
below should be protected :—
T.M.C. of evaporation losses by the Tungabhadra Left Bank
Name of Project Name of Quantu Evapora- Total
m of Low Level Canal was conditional upon equal utilisation
State tion loss- T.M.C.
benefited utilisa- es by the left and right sides. We are unable to accept this
tion argument. We find no trace of this condition either in
T.M.C. T.M.C.
the agreed statement of the 22nd January, 1971, or in
1 2 3 4 5 the list of projects filed on the 7th May, 1971.
Tungabhadra Mysore 19.00 3.50 22.50
Right Bank
Low Level
Canal
— do ----- Andhra 24.00 5.50 29.50
Pradesh

(14) This statement is in accordance with earlier statements and agreements, see supplement to the Report of the
Tungabhadra LowLevel Canal Scheme 1942, APPK XIX, pp. 2-3; Summary record of the conclusions reached
at the inter-State conference on the 5th and 6th October, 1957, APDK IX pp. 2-11 at p. 7; Project report on the
Tungabhadra Project High Level Canal
distribution system, Mysore portion, MYPK VI p. 3.
(15) See KGCR Ann. IX p. 16, see also Report of the Tungabhadra Project 1942, Low Level Canal Scheme (Government
of Madras)Vol. I, pp. 45, 47, APPK XVIII pp. 45,47.
(16) Report of the Tungabhadra Project 1942, Low Level Canal Scheme (Government of Madras) Vol. I, p. 47, APPK-
XVIII,p. 47
(17) Supplement to the Report of the Tungabhadra Low Level Canal Scheme (Government of Andhra Pradesh), pp. 1,3,
APPK XIXpp. 1,3.
(18) MRDK VIII p. 65.
 51

(2) 8.5 T.M.C. by way of assistance to Rajoli-

159 We are informed by the State of Mysore now bunda Diversion Scheme.
known as the State of Karnataka that the annual
reservoir loss of Tungabhadra reservoir though es- (3) 26 T.M.C. as contribution to the Krishna
timated to be 18 T.M.C. actually varies from year to for the benefit of irrigation lower down the
year. Krishna river.

On a consideration of all relevant factors, we propose
to give the following directions :—
"The reservoir loss of Tungabhadra reservoir
shall be shared equally by t he works of
the State of Karnataka on the left side and
the works on the right side of the reservoir. The
half share of the right side in the reservoir loss
shall be shared by the States of Andhra
Pradesh and Karn ataka i n th e ratio of 5.5
to 3.5."
We think that the above direction is just and equitable
under the current conditions of utilisation of the
waters of the Tungabhadra reservoir. If the conditions
materially change in the future, this direction may be
altered when our decision is reviewed.
Powers Houses on right side.—The dam power
house on the right side has four generating units of
9,000 kW each. The power house on Right Bank
160 Canal at Hampi has four generating units of 9,000 kW
each. The two power houses are in charge of the
Tungabhadra Board. The States of Andhra Pradesh and
Mysore agreed to share their benefits in the ratio of 4 to
l.(19 )
Mysore disputed the claim.(21 ) 161
Accordingly, the following issue was raised : —
Issue IV(B)(a).—"Should any directions be
given for the release of waters from the
Tungabhadra Dam—
(i) for the benefit of the Kurnool Cuddapah
Canal;
(ii) for the benefit of the Rajolibunda Diver-
sion Scheme; and
(iii) by way of contribution to the Krishna
river ?"
The Madras-Hyderabad agreement of June 1944
contemplated release of supplies from the Tungabhadra
reservoir for meeting the needs of new and pre-
Moghul irrigation, giving assistance to the Kurnool
Cuddapah Canal and Rajolibunda Canal and by way of
contribution to the Krishna for the requirements of
Krishna irrigation. (22)
The Rajolibunda Diversion Scheme is based on 162
river flow and assistance from Tungabhadra Dam.(23 )

Sir Arthur Cotton considered Kurnool Cuddapah

Munirabad Power House( 20).—The Munirabad Power
House on the left side is in charge of the Mysore
Government.
Release
of waters from Tungabhadra Dam, Issue
IV(B) (a).—Andhra Pradesh cont ended that the
following quantities of water should be released by
way of regulated supplies from the Tungabhadra
reservoir :—
Canal to be a part of the complete Tungabhadra Pro-
ject.( 24 ) The Khosla Committee Report( 25) considered
that the K.C. Canal had a prior claim on the Tungabhadra
waters and that until the Siddheswaram dam was built,
the Tungabhadra reservoir should provide 4.35 T.M.C.
of water for the requirements of the K.C. Canal of the
order of 58 to 60 T.M.C. as proposed by the
Committee.

(1) 58 T.M.C for the requirements of Kurnool At an inter-State conference in 1959, the Chief
Cuddapah Canal. Engineers of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh agreed that 26
T.M.C. should be released from the Tungabhadra

(19) Summary record of the conclusions reached at the inter-State conference of Ministers of Andhra Pradesh and Mysore at
the Tungabhadra Dam on the 5th and 6th October, 1957 APDK IX p. 10 ; MRDK XII Sheet XIII (3),
(20) Disputes concerning the Munirabad Power House are dealt with under Issue IV(B) (b) (iii) IV (B) (c) and IV (B) (d).

(21) SP III pp. 6-9, 12.

(22) APK II pp. 164-167.
(23) KGCR Ann. IX p. 27 : Report of Rajolibunda Diversion Scheme (Hyderabad) APPK XVI p. 2.
(24) Note of T. Highham on the Tungabhadra and Krishna Projects APDK I p. 21.
(25) Report of the Technical Committee on the optimum utilisation of the Krishna and the Godavari Waters pp. 99-100.
 52
reservoir by way of contribution to the Krishna. They accepted
the principle that some assistance to the pre-Moghal channels
163 and the Rajolibunda and K.C. Canals should be given from
the Tungabhadra reservoir. While the Andhra Pradesh
Chief Engineer was of the view that assistance to the
extent of 18 T.M.C. and 8.5 T.M.C. should be given to
the K.C. Canal and the Rajolibunda Canal respectively, the
Mysore Chief Engineer said that assistance to a limited
extent only could be given. The two Chief Engineers also
accepted the principle that the following priorities should be
adopted for sharing the waters of the Tungabhadra reservoir
(1) Pre-Moghul channels, (2) Krishna contribution. (3)
assistance to the K.C. Canal, (4) assistance to the
Rajolibunda Left Bank Canal. However, no final
agreement was reached between the Secretaries and
Ministers of the two States.(26 )
On October 23, 1972, the parties jointly made the
following statement :—
"As regards issue 1V(B) (a) the States of Andhra
Pradesh and Mysore are agreed that the
question of giving directions in respect of
matters referred to in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and
(iii) of Clause IV(B) (a) be decided by this
Hon'ble Tribunal in the exercise of its general
164
jurisdiction relating to the equitable distribution of
the waters of the River Krishna between the
States concerned."
The matters referred to in issue IV(B) (a) will be
dealt with accordingly.
Vesting of control and administration of the Tungabhadra
dam and reservoir and the main canal on the left side in
the Tungabhadra Board, Issue IV(B) (b) (i) :
Andhra Pradesh contends that the control and ad-
ministration of the Tungabhadra dam and reservoir and
the main canal on the left side should be vested in the
Tungabhadra Board. Mysore disputes the claim.
Accordingly, the following issue was raised :—
Issue IV(B)(b)(i) "Should any directions be given
for the vesting of the control and administration in
the Tungabhadra Board of the Tungabhadra
Dam and the Reservoir and the main canal on
the left side ? Has the Tribunal any power to
give such directions ?"
(26) SP III pp. 64-65, 105-111, 129.
(27) SP III p. 138-151.
The Tungabhadra Board was established by the President
of India under section 66(4) of the Andhra State Act, 1953. 165
No directions have been issued by the President of India
under section 66(4) vesting the control of the left side of the
Tungabhadra dam and reservoir and the Left Bank Canals
in the Tungabhadra Board.
In 1955-56 there was a proposal to vest in the
Tungabhadra Board unitary control over the maintenance
and operation of the Tungabhadra dam and reservoir and
operation of sluices and spillway gates but the proposal
was eventually dropped. (27)
On the 22nd August, 1973, the learned Advocate General
of Andhra Pradesh conceded that this Tribunal has no
power to direct the vesting of the control and administration
of the Tungabhadra dam and reservoir and the main canal
on the left side in the Tungabhadra Board. But he prayed
that we should make suitable recommendations for vesting
the control and administration of the entire Tungabhadra re-
servoir and dam including the spillway, river sluices and
penstocks, as also the headworks on both sides and works 166
common to the States of Andhra Pradesh and Mysore in a
Joint control body.
In our opinion, there is no ground for taking away the
administration and control of the Tungabhadra Left Bank
Canals and their headworks from the Mysore
Government and vesting them in the Tungabhadra Board or
any other joint control body.
At present, the Tungabhadra dam and reservoir are
subject to the control and administration of the Mysore
Government on the left side and the Tungabhadra Board on
the right side. We consider that control over the
maintenance and operation of the entire Tungabhadra dam
and reservoir and spillway gates on the left and right
sides should be vested in a single control body, but this
may be done by suitable legislation. Until another control
body is established, such control may be vested in the
Tungabhadra Board. The control body may be empowered
to carry out contour surveys of the entire reservoir from
time to time with a view to ascertain whether its storage
capacity has been reduced due to silting and prepare re-
vised capacity tables, if necessary.
At present, common working tables of the Tungabhadra
reservoir are being prepared from time to time by the
Tungabhadra Board and discharges from the reservoir are
regulated in accordance with such
 53
working tables. The existing practice started in 1967-68.
167
The Tungabhadra Board had prepared the working table
of the Tungabhadra reservoir from 15-11-1967 to 15-
7-1968 in consultation with the Chief Engineers of the
States of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh. The Board asked
for a direction in this regard from the Central
Government. By its letter dated the 13th June, 1968(28)
the Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation and
Power, conveyed to the Chairman, Tungabhadra Board, its
approval to the operation of the reservoir for the period
up to the 15th July, 1968 on the basis of the aforesaid
working table. The letter stated that "The arrangement sug-
gested in this working table is purely ad hoc and without
prejudice to the rights, claims and apportionment of
Tungabhadra waters or of the regulation of the Tungabhadra
Reservoir in future years". An identical statement is added at
the foot of all working tables prepared subsequently by the
Tungabhadra Board. We considered that the existing
practice with regard to the preparation of the working tables
of the Tungabhadra reservoir by the Tungabhadra Board and
regulation of discharges from the reservoir in accordance
with such working tables should be continued until another
control body is established.
168 The State of Mysore has represented that the Tungabhadra
Board should be abolished. The State of Andhra Pradesh
wants that the Board should be continued. In our opinion, it is
desirable that the Tungabhadra Board should continue to
retain charge of works on or connected with the
Tungabhadra Project which are common to the two States
until another control body, as mentioned above, is
established. The State of Mysore has made charges of
partiality against the Tungabhadra Board. It will be open
to the State of Mysore to make such representation as it
thinks fit on this subject to the Government of India.
If a control body for the entire Krishna valley is
established, the Tungabhadra Board may be abolished and all
the powers of the Tungabhadra Board may be vested in such
control body.
Issue IV(B) (b) (i) is answered accordingly.
Vesting of Control of the Rajolibunda headworks and
common portion of the canal within Mysore State limits in
the Tungabhadra Board. Issue IV(B) (b)
(ii) :
Andhra Pradesh contends that the control of the
Rajolibunda headworks and the length of the common
(28) SP III pp. 191-192 (Ex. MYK 383).
(29) SP HI pp. 10, 164, 182-183.
(30) SP III p. 132, KGCR Ann. IX p. 27.
(31) SP III p. 103.
portion of the canal within Mysore State limits should be
vested in the Tungabhadra Board with a view to ensure
supply to the irrigation lower down in Andhra Pradesh and to
prevent unauthorised abstraction of water in the Mysore
reaches of the canal. Mysore disputes the claim and
contends that the Tribunal has no power to give such
169
directions. (29) Accordingly, the following issue was raised
:—
Issue IV(B)(b)(ii) :—Should any directions be given
for the vesting of the control and administration in
the Tungabhadra Board of the Rajolibunda
headworks and the common canals within Mysore
State limits ?
Has the Tribunal any power to give such directions ?
Upon the reorganisation of States in 1956, the
headworks and the initial 26-27 miles of the canal with
an ayacut of 5,900 acres fell within Mysore State and the
remaining portion of the canal with an ayacut of 87,000
acres fell within Andhra Pradesh. (30)
At an inter-State conference of Ministers of the States
of Andhra Pradesh and Mysore on the 5th and 6th June,
1959, at Bangalore, it was agreed that the existing
arrangement for the maintenance of the head-works and the
common portions of the Rajolibunda canal and regulation
of water by Mysore be continued for a period of one year
from the 1st July, 1959, subject to the condition that the
regulation of water at the head reach might be done by the
Officer concerned in close consultation with the Executive
Engineer concerned of Andhra Pradesh or his representative
who would be contacting the Mysore Officer at the 170
headworks either on telephone or otherwise. This
procedure has been followed ever since.
In October 1959, the Chief Engineers of the two States
agreed that there would be a full supply discharge of 850
cusecs at the canal head out of which 770 cusecs would be
available at the Mysore-Andhra Pradesh border. (31)
In November 1959, the States of Andhra Pradesh and
Mysore agreed that the liabilities on account of the
headworks of the Rajolibunda Diversion Scheme would be
shared in the ratio of the quantities of the water allocated
for use by the. two States under the Scheme and that the
principles applicable to the allo-
 54

cation of liabilities under the Tungabhadra Right Bank Low
Level Canal (common portion) should be made applicable to
the liabilities under the Rajolibunda Canal. (32)
On the 25th January, 1971, the States of Mysore and
Andhra Pradesh made the following joint statement :—
"The States of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh state that
the benefits of utilisations under the existing
Rajolibunda Diversion Scheme are shared between
171 the two States, as mentioned herein below :
schemes is 384 acres. Mysore is at liberty to use its
share of the water withdrawn at the canal head for lift
irrigation but it has no right to use water in excess of its
share.
In September 1968, the Andhra Pradesh Govern-ment
requested the Central Government to take over the
management of the Rajolibunda Diversion head-works and
common portion of the canal. (38) The Central
Government did not accede to the request.

On the 22nd August 1973, the learned Advocate General

Mysore . . . 1.2 T.M.C. of Andhra Pradesh conceded that this Tribunal has no
. 15.9 power to direct the vesting of the control and
T.M.C." administration of the Rajolibunda headworks and the
The actual withdrawals and deliveries at the canal head common canals within Mysore State limits in the
and at Mysore-Andhra Pradesh border were as follows :— Tungabhadra Board. However, he prayed that we should
make suitable recommendations for vesting the control and
administration of the aforesaid works in a joint control
Withdrawals in body.
T.M.C.
Year At canal At We are of the opinion that, at present, there is no 173
sufficient ground for taking away the administration and
June to May head(33) Mysore
control of the Rajolibunda headworks and the common
Andhra
Pradesh portion of the canal within Mysore State limits and
bord- vesting such administration and control in the Tungabhadra
er(34) Board or any other joint control body.
1 2 3 However, we find it necessary to give directions for the
1961-62 . . . . . . 5.70 4.29 proper sharing of the benefits of utilisations under the
1962-63 . . . . . . 8.98 6.89 Rajolibunda Diversion Scheme between the States of
1963-64 . . . . . . 10.73 9.61 Mysore (now known as Karnataka) and Andhra Pradesh.
1964-65 . . . . . . 13.98 12.45 Accordingly, we propose to give the following direction :—
1965-66 . . . . . . 13.27 11.96
1966-67 . . . . . . 17.02 15.08 The benefits of utilisations under the Rajolibunda
1967-68 . . . . . . 18.18 14.95 Diversion Scheme be shared between •the States
1968-69 . . . . . . 19.33 15.98 of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh as mentioned
.
herein below :—
The deliveries at Mysore-Andhra Pradesh border were
somewhat irregular and not in conformity with the
agreements, mentioned above.(35) However, it appears that Karnataka . . . 1.2 T.M.C.
the ayacut was not fully developed and having regard to the Andhra Pradesh . . 15.9 T.M.C.
areas irrigated in Andhra Pradesh and their water Andhra Pradesh . .
172
requirements, Andhra Pradesh did not suffer any real Issue IV(B) (b) (ii) is answered accordingly. Other
prejudice. (86) disputes concerning Tungabhadra water :
Mysore has installed two minor lift irrigation
schemes for which water is pumped from the Rajolibunda Other disputes concerning the Rajolibunda Diversion
canal.( 37 ) The area irrigated under the two Scheme, the Kurnool Cuddapah Canal and the Bhadra
Reservoir Project are considered under Issue II(3).

(32) SP III p. 130.

(33) MYDK XV pp. 11-14.
(34) APDK VI pp. 13-14.
(35) SP III pp. 132-136.
(36) SP IV pp 35-37; APDK VII p. 20; MRDK VIII.pp., 19-20.
(37) SP IV pp. 4, 36, 49.
(38) SP III pp. 132-137.
 CHAPTER VI
174
Claims arising out of the States Reorganisation Act,I956
Reorganisation of States : Under Articles 3 and 4 of the
Constitution, a law made by Parliament for reorganisation of
States may contain such supplemental, incidental and
consequential provisions as Parliament may deem
necessary. Consequent upon the reorganisation of States
from time to time, Parliament considered it necessary to
make special provisions with a view to minimise the
unsettling effects of a reorganisation on certain irrigation
and power projects and inter-State arrangements and
agreements. For purposes of the present proceedings, the
special provisions contained in section 66 of the Andhra
State Act, 1953 and sections 107 and 108 of the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956 are relevant. We have
considered elsewhere the provisions of section 66 of the
Andhra State Act.
Section 107 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 : The
section provides :—
*"Section 107. If it appears to the Central Government
that the arrangement in regard to the generation or
supply of electric power or the supply of water for
any area or in regard to the development of any
175 project for such generation or supply has been or is
likely to be modified to the disadvantage of that
area by reason of the fact that it has been
transferred by the provisions of Part II from the
State in which the power stations and other instal-
lations for the generation and supply of such power,
or the catchment area, reservoirs and other works
for the supply of water, as the case may be, are
located, the Central Government may give such
directions as it deems proper to the State
Government or other authority concerned for the
maintenance, so far as practicable, of the previous
arrangement."
Similar provisions are to be found in section 69 of the
Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 and section 68
(1) See F.J. Berber, Rivers in International Law 1959 Ed. pp. 59-60.
*Continuance of arrangements in regard to generation and supply of electric power and supply of water.
**Continunce of agreements and arrangements relating to certain irrigation, power or multipurpose
projects.
55
1 M of I&P/73—9
of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1960, Articles 309 and
310 of the Treaty of St. Germain of October 10, 1919 and
other Peace Treaties contained analogous provisions(1)
Andhra Pradesh claims relief under section 107 in respect
of Munirabad Power House on the ground that an
arrangement for supply of power to Hyderabad city has been
modified by reason of the fact that Hyderabad city was
transferred to Andhra Pradesh. We have held that there was
no arrangement as alleged and, consequently, no relief
176
under section 107 can be granted. The question whether,
assuming there was such an arrangement, the Tribunal can
give any relief under section 107 does not, therefore, arise.
Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 : The
section provides :—
**"108. (1) Any agreement or arrangement enter-into
between the Central Government and one or
more existing States or between two or more
existing States relating to—
(a) the administration, maintenance and ope
ration of any project executed before the
appointed day, or
(b) the distribution of benefits, such as, the
right to receive and utilise water or elec
tric power, to be derived as a result of
the execution of such project, which was
subsisting immediately before the appoint
ed day shall continue in force, subject to
such adaptations and modifications, if any
(being of a character not effecting the
general operation of the agreement or ar
rangement) as may be agreed upon be
tween the Central Government and the
successor State concerned or between the
successor States concerned, as the case
 56
may be, by the 1st day of November, 1957, or, if
177 no agreement is reached by the said date, as
may be made therein by order of the
Central Government.
(2) Where a project concerning one or more
of the existing States affected by the pro
visions of Part II has been taken in hand,
but not completed, or has been accepted
by the Government of India for inclusion
in the Second Five Year Plan before the
appointed day, neither the scope of the pro
ject nor the provisions relating to its ad
ministration, maintenance or operation or to
the distribution of benefits to be derived from
it shall be varied :—
(a) in the case where a single successor State
is concerned with the project after the
appointed day, except with the previous
approval of the Central Government, and
(b) in the case where two or more successor
States are concerned with the project
after that day, except by agreement be-
tween those successor States, or if no
agreement is reached, except in such
manner as the Central Government may
by order direct,
and the Central Government may from time to time give
such directions as may appear to it to be necessary for the
178
due completion of the project and for its administration,
maintenance and operation thereafter.
(3) In this section, the expression 'project'
means a project for the promotion of irri
gation, water supply or drainage or for the
development of electric power or for the
regulation or development of any inter-
State river or river valley."
The expression "appointed day" means the 1st day of
November, 1956, see section 2(a) of the Act.
The object of section 108 is to minimize the unsettling
effect of reorganisation of States on inter-State projects
and agreements. (2)
In the present reference, there is no dispute about the
scope or interpretation of section 108(1).
The first part of section 108(2) shows that section 108(2)
applies to a project concerning one or more of the
existing States affected by the reorganisation
(2) Report of the Slates Reorganisation Commission 1955, pp. 54-56, 224, 254.
of States which was taken in hand, but not completed or
was accepted by the Government of India for inclusion in
the Second Five Year Plan before the appointed day. If
there is such a project, neither its scope nor the provisions
relating to its administration, maintenance and operation or
to the distribution of benefits to be derived from it shall 179
be varied except as provided in the sub-section.
The second part of section 108(2) authorises the Central
Government to give necessary directions for the due
completion of such a project and for its administration,
maintenance and operation thereafter.
Relief under section 108(2) has been claimed in respect
of—
(1) release, of water from the Koyna Project,
Issue V(a)(ii) ;
(2) release of water from a storage dam at Ajra,
Issue V(a) (i) ;
(3) extension of the Tungabhadra Left Bank
Low Level Canal to Andhra Pradesh, Issue
V(b)(ii) ;
(4) extension of a project on the Bhima in
Mysore to Andhra Pradesh, Issue V(b)
(iii) ;
(5) extension of the Upper Krishna Project to
Andhra Pradesh, Issue V(b) (i) ; and
(6) sharing of power generated at the Munira-
bad Power House, Issue IV(B).
For reasons to be given hereafter, we have held that
no grounds for relief under section 108(2) have been made
out in respect of any of the projects. Accordingly, the
question what relief could be granted by the Tribunal if
such grounds were established does not arise. The second 180
part of section 108(2) authorises only the Central
Government to issue the directions mentioned therein.
We now proceed to discuss the projects in respect of
which relief is claimed under section 107 and/or section
108 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
 57
(1) Release of water from the Koyna Project, Issue
V(a) (ii) :
Koyna Hydro-electric Project Stages I and II : Stage I
of the Koyna Hydro-electric Project as envisaged in the
project report of December 1952(3) and sanction-ed by the
Bombay Government on the 20th February. 1953(1)
provided for power generation only and a storage of 36
T.M.C. of water. The Project was inaugurated in January
1954. Some details of Stage 1 were modified by the project
reports of March. 1956 and October, 1956. Stage I as
envisaged in the report of October 1956 was approved by
the Bombay Government on the 17th January, 1957(5) and
was cleared by the Planning Commission. (6)
The construction of Stage I was planned so as to
facilitate the work of Stage II. Consequently, the estimate
of Stage I provided for construction of a spillway of full
181 width in foundation and superstructure required for Stage
II to store 98.7 T.M.C., irrigation sluices, penstock pipes
and other works needed for Stage 1I.(7)
Stage II of the Project as envisaged in the project report
of July 1960 provided for the construction of works
relevant to the storage of 73 T.M.C. of water upto the crest
level of the spillway and use of 67.5 T.M.C. for power
generation and 16 T.M.C. for irrigation in South Satara
District.(8) Stage II of the Project was cleared by the
Planning Commission in April 1961 subject to the
condition that westward diversion of water would be
limited to 67.5 T.M.C. of water per annum and
consumptive use of the water let down eastwards from the
reservoir would not be made without the approval of the
Government of India. (9) In January 1962, the Planning
Commission sanctioned the thickening of the Koyna dam
relevant to a storage of 98 T.M.C. and raising of the height
of the dam for full reservoir level 2158.5 on condition that
the proposal did not involve any change in the scope of the
project in regard to the maximum westward diversion of
water or the consumptive use for irrigation. (10) In July
182 191962, the Maharashtra Government gave administrative
sanction to the estimate of Stage II.
(3) December, 1952 Report, pp. vi, vii, 6, 45.
(4) MYDK II pp. 365-379.
(5) MRDK VI pp. 96-104.
(6) MR. Note No. 16; First Five Year Plan p. 351, Second Five Year Plan, pp. 333, 366.
(7) December, 1952 Project Report, pp. 33, 34; Report of the COPP Irrigation and Power Team on Koyna Project,
p. 29,
(8) July, 1960 Project Report, p. 4.
(9) MRDK VI pp. 107-108.
(10) APK II p. 118; MRDK I pp. 161-163.
(11) MYDK II pp. 386-388.
(12) MYDK II pp. 389-392; MRDK VI pp. 47-60, 63-64, 94.
(13) MYDK I pp. 175-195; MYDK XIX pp. 63-70.
(14) MYK I, pp. 46-48 MRK IV, pp. 35-39; MYK IV, pp. 23-24; MYDK I p. 181-SP I pp. 133-154.
Offer of storage of water in the Koyna Dam for
irrigation in Bijapur District :
In May 1958, the Bombay Government offered to
provide storage of 25.53 T.M.C. of water in the Koyna
dam for lift irrigation in Bijapur District of Mysore on 183
condition that the Mysore Government would pay the cost
of the extra storage(11)
However, lift irrigation in Bijapur was not economically
feasible without the supply of cheap power from the Koyna
Project. As the Bombay Government declined to supply the
power, the Mysore Government was unwilling to pay the
cost of the extra storage and they intimated that, while they
reserved their right to utilise Koyna waters to the extent of
46 T.M.C., they did not presently ask for any storage in the
Koyna dam.(12)
In 1958, the Bombay Government had stated that the
storage of 25.53 T.M.C. of water in the Koyna dam for lift
irrigation in Bijapur could be provided at a later date on
payment of extra cost by the Mysore Government. In 1962,
the Mysore Government requested the Maharashtra
Government to provide storage for their Upper Krishna
Project to irrigate Bijapur District. The Maharashtra
Government declined to comply with the request. An
appeal to the Government of India to provide the storage
was unsuccessful. (13)
Issue : Mysore contends that the Koyna Hydro-Electric
Project which was taken in hand by the Bombay
Government but not completed before the 1st November,
1956 contemplated lift irrigation in Bijapur District. (14)
Upon the reorganisation of States, Koyna remained within
the State of Bombay and Bijapur District became part of
the reorganised Mysore State. In view of section 108(2) of
the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the scope of the
Project and distribution of its benefits cannot be varied and
consequently Maharashtra as the successor of Bombay
State is bound to release water from the
 58
Koyna storage for irrigating lands in Bijapur District.
Maharashtra disputes the contention." The following issue
was raised :—
Issue V(a) (ii) : Should any direction be given for
release of waters by Maharashtra for the benefit of
Mysore from Koyna Valley Irri-gation-cum-
Hydro-electric Project ?
Claim for relief under section 108(2) of the States
Reorganisation Act is not established : Stage I of the Koyna
Hydel Project which was taken in hand but not
completed before the 1st November, 1956 envisaged
184
power production only. Irrigation in Bijapur District was
not within the scope of Stage I as alleged.
Some works relevant for Stage II were undertaken in
Stage I, but before the 1st November, 1956, the construction
of the additional storage or the excavation of canals
required for irrigation was not taken in hand.
Stage II of the Project was not taken in hand nor
included in the Second Five Year Plan before the 1st
November, 1956. Stage II which was taken in hand
subsequently did not provide for irrigation in Mysore
territory.
The Bombay Government was under no legal obligation to
provide storage in the Koyna dam for the irrigation of
Bijapur District. Nevertheless, the Bombay Government
offered to reserve 25.53 T.M.C. of the storage for Mysore
provided Mysore was willing to pay the cost, but the
Mysore Government did not accept the offer.
The Mysore Government is not entitled to any relief
under section 108(2) of the States Reorganisation Act.
The Mysore Government claimed relief under section
107 of the States Reorganisation Act also. However,
Counsel for the Mysore Government does not press this
claim.
Conclusion : Issue V(a) (ii) is answered in the negative.
185 (2) Release of water from a storage dam at Ajra
Issue V(a) (i) :
The Bombay Government proposed the construction of
a storage reservoir at Ajra on the Hiranyakeshi
(15) MYPK IV pp. 8-9 MYDK II p. 381 ; MYK IV
34.
(16) Supplement to the Report of Tungabhadra
Project Low Level Canal Scheme (1942), APPK
XIX, p.l.
river and the Ghataprabha Right Bank Canal under the
Ghataprabha Valley Development Scheme Stage HI. Upon
the reorganisation of States in 1956, Ajra remained within
Bombay State and the area to be irrigated under Stage III of
the scheme fell within the reorganised Mysore State. (15)
Mysore contended that in view of section 108(2) of
the States Reorganisation Act, the scope of the proposed
scheme could not be varied and Maharashtra, as the
successor of Bombay State, was bound to supply water
from a storage at Ajra for the benefit of the Mysore
areas. Maharashtra denied the contention. The following
issue was raised :—
Issue V(a) (i) : Should any directions be given for
release of waters by Maharashtra for the benefit
of Mysore from a storage dam at Ajra ?
We find that Ghataprabha Scheme Stage III including the
storage dam at Ajra was not taken in hand nor included
in the Second Five Year Plan before the 1st November,
1956. Section 108(2) of the States Reorganisation Act does 186
not apply to the Project. Mysore is not entitled to any
relief under section 108(2) as claimed.
On the 22nd January, 1971, Mr. Krishna Rao,
Counsel for the State of Mysore, stated that he did not
press Issue V(a) (i) and that Mysore would not ask for a
mandatory order on Maharashtra for release of waters
from any storage dam at Ajra.
Issue V(a) (i) is answered in the negative.
(3) Extension of the Tungabhadra Left Bank Low Level
Canal to Andhra Pradesh, Issue V(b) (ii) :
Tungabhadra Left Bank Low Level Canal Scheme and
dispute concerning its extension to Andhra Pradesh : The
Tungabhadra Project Scheme finally formulated for
execution as a joint scheme of Hyderabad and Madras
Governments envisaged construction of the Left Bank
Low Level Canal on the Hyderabad side 127 miles in
length taking off from the Tungabhadra dam at
Mallapuram and running in the district of Raichur. The
scheme was taken up for execution by the Hyderabad
Government in 1945.(16) Construction of the Left Bank Low
Level Canal started in February 1945.
 In 1947, the Hyderabad Government proposed
an extension of the Left Bank Low-Level Canal, so
187 that the main canal would run up to mile 127 near
Raichur from where it would bifurcate into North
and South Gadwal branches and then join again and
from the point of the junction, the Alampur
distributary channel would take off. The length of
the North Gadwal branch would be 41 miles, that of
the South Gadwall branch 39 miles and that of the
Alampur distributary 20 miles. At the same time, the
Hyderabad Government proposed to restrict the
irrigation to 4,50,000 acres up to a point a little
beyond mile 127 near Raichur. (17)
Before the States Reorganisation Act,
1956, the entire Raichur District including
Alampur and Gadwal Taluks formed part of
the State of Hyderabad.
Under the States Reorganisation Act as from
the 1st November 1956 Gadwal and Alampur laluks
were added to the States of Andhra Pradesh and the
rest of the district became a part of the State of
Mysore. The proposal to extend the Tungabhadra
Left Bank Low Level Canal to Gadwal and Alampur
Taluks was not implemented by the Mysore
Government and the canal now runs up to mile 141
within Mysore State limits. Andhra Pradesh claims
an extension beyond mile 141 so that it may irrigate
1,20,000 acres in Gadwal and Alampur Taluks with
188 an annual utilisation of 19.2 T.M.C. Mysore denies
the claim. (18)
Andhra Pradesh contends that the Left Bank
Low Level Canal Project which was taken in hand,
but not completed before the 1st November 1956,
contemplated extension of the canal beyond mile
141 to Gadwal and Alampur Taluks and that, in
view of section 108 of the States Reorganisation
Act, the scope of the project cannot be varied.
Consequently, Andhra Pradesh claims that the canal
should be extended beyond mile 141 to Gadwal and
A1ampur Taluks. Mysore disputes the contention.
The following issue was raised:- .
Issue V(b)(ii) : Should any directions be
given for release of waters by Mysore for the
benefit of Andhra Pradesh from Tungabhadra
Left Bank Canal Project?
Administrative sanction of 1951: The estimate
for the Tungabhadra project was sanctioned by the
Hyderabad Government on the 16th January,
1951.(19)
(17) Tungabhadra Project Report (Hyderabad), pp. 7-8 (Ex. MYK 270).
(18) APK I pp. 43, 44, 136; MYK III pp. 31-32; Report of the Tungabhadra Project Left Bank Canal Extension of Gadwal and Alampur Taluks of Andhra Pradesh, APPK
XXIX pp. 1-4. .
Thevillreport
(19) MYDK pp. 9-34. accompanying
the estimate
(20) APDK X pp. 128-134, 140-142; SP III pp. 94-102.
and the map, annexed to it show that the
The report accompanying the estimate and
the map annexed to it show that the Hyderabad
Government undertook construction of the main
canal up to mile 127 near Raichur and South
Gadwal branch up to about mile 14 only and the
North Gadwal hranch was altogether deleted
from the Project. The report stated:
“After the bifurcation into North and South' 189
Gadwal branches, the area is commanded jointly by
the Tungabhadra Project and Upper. Krishna
Project. In the present estimate only l/5th of the cost
of these two branches is taken as debitable _to the
Tungabhadra project as done previously. From this
amount the South Gadwal branch will be
constructed upto about 14 miles and the North
Gadwal branch will be altogether deleted. These
branch canals are estimated on cusec mile basis as
done before”
The administrative sanction of the Hyderabad
Government shows that construction of the canal up
to mile 141 only was taken up for execution.
Extension of the canal beyond mile 141 to Gadwal
and Alampur Taluks was not taken in hand by the
Hyderabad Government.
On the 31st March, 1955, the Hyderabad
Government sanctioned a cropping scheme for an
ayacut of 5,80,000 acres in the Karnataka region up
to mile 141. A proposal to extend the canal beyond
mile 141 to the Talengana areas was under
consideration, but the proposal was not finalised
before the 1st November. 1956.(2°) The Project
taken in hand by the Hyderabad Government before,
the 1st November, 1956 was for construction of the
canal up to mile 141 only.
Andhra Pradesh's claim for relief under 190
section 108(2) of the States Reorganisation Act is
not established. :
Extension of the canal beyond mile 141 was
not within the scope of the project which was taken
in hand by the Hyderabad Government, but not
completed before the 1st November 956. It is
conceded by Andhra Pradesh that the project was
not accepted by the Government of India for
inclusion in the Second Five Year Plan before 1st
November, 1956. Accordingly, the provisions of
section 108(2) of the States Reorganisation Act.
1956 are not attracted and Andhra Pradesh is not
entitled to any relief under it.
 60
In his arguments before us, Counsel for Andhra
Pradesh claimed relief under section 108(2) only. He did
not argue that Andhra Pradesh was entitled to any relief
under sections 107 and 108(1) of the Act or under any
other provision of law.
The extension of the Tungabhadra Left Bank Canal and
other projects in Mysore to areas in Andhra Pradesh can
fructify only by close co-operation and mutual adjustments
between the States concerned,(21) but instead of co-
operative approach and mutual agreement, there is
vigorous opposition to all such extension schemes by the
State of Mysore.
Issue V(b)(ii) is answered in the negative.
(4) Extension of a project on the Bhima in Mysore to
191
Andhra Pradesh; Issue V(b)(iii) :
The Hyderabad Government contemplated construction
of the Bhima Reservoir Project at Tangadgi in Gulbarga
District for irrigating 4,00,000 acres in Gul-barga and
Mahboobnagar Districts. (22)
Upon the reorganisation of States in 1956 most of
Gulbarga District including Tangadgi fell within Mysore,
and Mahboobnagar District became part of Andhra
Pradesh.
After 1956, Mysore proposed the Bhima Lift Irrigation
Scheme at Sonna and the Bhima Irrigation Proj ect at
S on t hi t o i rri gat e Gu l barga Di st ri ct of Mysore. (23)
Andhra Pradesh now proposes the Bhima Project
with headworks at Tangadgi in Mysore with extension to
Mahboobnagar District of Andhra Pradesh to irrigate
3,80,000 acres with an annual utilisation of 100 7
T.M. C. of water.( 24 )
Andhra Pradesh contends that in view of section
108(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the
scope of the earlier projects cannot be varied and
Mysore is bound to supply water from those projects for
192 the benefit of Andhra Pradesh areas. Mysore denies the
contention. The following issue was raised:—
Issue V(b)(iii) : Should any directions be given
for release of waters by Mysore for the
(21) Report of the Krishna Godavari Commission, p. 220.
(22) APPK XIV pp. 1-3.
(23) MYPK VIII pp 63, 76.
(24) APPKXXVIII pp. 3-5; APK I p. 44; SP III pp. 118-124; MYK III pp. 31-32.
(25) APPK XXVII, pp. 1-3.
(26) MYPK I, p. 20, MYDK XII, p. 1.
(27) APPK XXVII pp. 5-7; APK I. p. 44; MYK II pp. 31-32; SP III pp. 118-124
benefit of Andhra Pradesh from Bhima
Project ?
We find that the Bhima Reservoir Project at Tangadgi
was not sanctioned by the Hyderabad Government. Even
the Bhima Irrigation Project and the Bhima Lift
Irrigation scheme proposed by Mysore since 1956
have not yet been sanctioned by the Mysore
Government. None of the Projects was taken in hand or
included in the Second Five Year Plan before the 1st
November 1956. Section 108(2) of the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956 does not apply to the
Projects. Andhra Pradesh is not entitled to any relief
under section 108(2) for extension of irrigation facilities
to Mahboobnagar District from any Project at Tangadgi
in Mysore.
Issue V(b) (iii) is answered in the negative.
(5) Extension of Upper Krishna Project to
Andhra Pradesh, Issue V(b)(i) :
The Hyderabad Government proposed construction of
the Upper Krishna Project at Kamaladinne for irrigating
Gadwal and Alampur Taluks and other areas in
Hyderabad State. At the inter-State conference of 1951,
the Hyderabad Government put forth a demand of 165
T.M.C. for the project. In view of the allocation of the 193
Krishna waters in 1951, the Hyderabad Government
earmarked 100 T.M.C. for the project. The project was
included in the draft Hyderabad Second Five Year
Plan.( 25 ) Upon the reorganisation of States,
Kamaladinne fell within Mysore while Gadwal and
Alampur Taluks became part of Andhra Pradesh.
After 1956, the Mysore Government proposed the
Upper Krishna project with headworks at Narayanpur for
irrigating Gulbarga and Raichur Districts in Mysore. The
project was sanctioned by the Planning Commission in
1963.(26)
The Andhra Pradesh Government now proposes
extension of the Upper Krishna Project to irrigate
1,50,000 acres in Gadwal and Alampur Taluks with an
annual utilisation of 54.40 T.M.C. of water.(27 ) Andhra
Pradesh contends that, in view of section 108(2) of
the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the
 61
scope of the earlier Projects cannot be varied and Mysore
is bound to supply water from those projects for the
benefit of Andhra Pradesh areas. Mysore disputes the
contention. The following issue was raised :—
Issue V(b) (i) : Should any directions be given for
release of waters by Mysore for the benefit of
194
Andhra Pradesh from Upper Krishna Project ?
We find that the Upper Krishna Project of Hyderabad
was not sanctioned or taken up for execution by the
Hyderabad Government. The Mysore Government started
construction of its Upper Krishna Project after 1963. None of
the Projects was taken in hand or included in the Second
Five Year Plan before the 1st November, 1956. Section
108(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 does not
apply to the Projects. Andhra Pradesh is not entitled to
any relief under section 108(2) for extension of irrigation
facilities to Gadwal and Alampur Taluks from the Upper
Krishna Project.
Issue V(b) (i) is answered in the negative.
(6) Munirabad Power House, Issue IV(B) (b) (iii),
IV(B)(c), IV(B)(d ) :
Munirabad Power House and disputes relating
thereto :
The Munirabad Power House has 3 generating sets of
9,000 kW each. It is situated on the left side of the
Tungabhadra dam.
Construction of the Power House was started by the
Hyderabad Government. (28) Before the 1st November, 1956,
the Tungabhadra dam and reservoir on the left side
including the Munirabad Power House were vested in the
State of Hyderabad.
195
Under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, with effect
from the 1st November, 1956, Hyderabad District,
Mahboobnagar District including the Taluks of Maktal and
Narayanpeth, Alampur and Gadwal Taluks of Raichur
District and Kodangal and Tandur Taluks of Gulbarga
District of the erstwhile Hyderabad State were added to the
State of Andhra Pradesh. The rest of Raichur and
Gulbarga Districts including the site of Munirabad
Power House became a part of the State of Mysore. In
consequence of the reorganisation of States, the
Munirabad Power House with all its
(28) SP III pp. 240-241.
(29) See Second Five Year Plan of Mysore State (1956-57 to 1960-1961) p. 175.
(30) Hyderabad Administrative Report, April 1951-March 1972, SP III pp. 240-241.
(31) SP III pp. 242-264, 267.
assets and liabilities devolved on the State of
Mysore( 29 ) and the administration and control of the
Power House vested in that State.
Andhra Pradesh claims a share of the power generated at
the Munirabad Power House under sections 107 and
108(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and, to
ensure the supply of the power, an order for the vesting
of the control of the Power House in the Tungabhadra
Board. Mysore denies the claim and contends that the
dispute is not a water dispute.
Accordingly, the following issue was raised :—
Issue IV(B) (b) (iii) : Should any direction be given
for the vesting of the control and administration
in the Tungabhadra Board of the Power House
at Munirabad ?
Has the Tribunal any power to give such directions ? 196
(c) Is Andhra Pradesh entitled to a share in the
power generated at the Power House at Munirabad ?
(d) is the claim of Andhra Pradesh for a share
in the benefits of the power generated at Munirabad
Power House and/or for the vesting of the control
and administration of the said Power House in the
Tungabhadra Board a water dispute within the mean
ing of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act ?
Tungabhadra Hydro-electric Project Stages I and II
The Tungabhadra Hydro-electric Project of Hyderabad
envisaged the construction of the Munirabad Power
House in two stages. The project came under the purview
of the First and Second Five Year Plans.
Work on Stage I of the project was in progress during
April 1951 to March 1952.(30)
The revised estimate of Stage I of the Project was prepared
in October 1954. Stage I of the project was sanctioned at
the end of the First Five Year Plan and was included in
the Plan before the 1st November, 1956.(31)
Stage I contemplated the installation of two generating 197
sets of 9.000 kW each at the main station at Munirabad, the
construction of 8 sub-stations including Narayanpeth sub-
station, 132 kV transmission line from Munirabad to
Raichur, 66 kV line from Raichur to Yadgir, 33 kV feeder
line from Yadgir to Narayanpeth and other lines.
 62

On the 24th August, 1957, the Planning Commission pected and (2) as electrification of 20 more villages
approved of Stage II of the Project for implementation in would be taken up, there would be additional load of
the Second Five Year Plan.( 32 ) Stage II envisaged the nearly 1,700 kW.
installation of one additional generati n g set of 9, 0 00
kW. The Proj ect R eport ( 3 3 ) st ated — Agreement of September 1956 for adoption of 110 kV
transmission line.—
"The maximum load demand by the end of 1961 is
expected to reach 16085 kW, the details of The original proposal for 132 kV transmission
which are gi ven below — lines from Munirabad power station was meant for the
southern districts of Hyderabad without any reference
to the Mysore grid. In view of the proposed
reorganisation of States, it became advisable to consider the
( 1 ) Maximum demands as per station as part of an integrated grid consisting of Mysore
Appendix I 6785 kW
system and Tungabhadra system. The Chief Electrical 199
(2) Maximum demands for Cement
& Sugar Factories expected m the Engineer, Mysore, therefore, proposed to the Chief
Rai-chur and Gulbarga 3000 kW Engineer (Electrical), Hyderabad that 110 kV
(1) Districts
Maximum demands for lift transmission line system should be adopted for the
irrigation 5000 kW Tungabhadra Electrical Scheme in place of 132 kV
(4) Additional demands expected line. On the 13th September, 1956, the Chief Engineer
and agri-cultural processing due (Electrical), Hyderabad agreed to the proposal. (34)
to increased irrigation facilities 1000 kW
in the areas
(5) Maximum demands under On the 19th September, 1956, the Hyderabad
community project area 300 kW Government sanctioned the acceptance of the joint
16085 kW " recommendations of the two Chief Engineers. (35)

The Report gave the estimated load demand of 30 On the 3rd October, 1956, the Chief Engineer
198
towns and villages. The demands of 5 Telengana (Electrical), Hyderabad State, advised the Karnataka
towns were shown as follows — Chamber of Commerce, Hubli, that the power available
from the Munirabad power station in the first stage
could be made available for industries in the
Name of locality Munirabad/Raichur area and that further corres-
Power demand
pondence should be addressed to the Chief Electrical
Day KW Night KW Engineer, Mysore. (36)
1 2 3
District Gulbarga The change-over from 132 kV to 110 kV was done
with a view to keep the Munirabad Power Station
Tandur 300 100 linked with the rest of the Mysore power system so that
Kodangal 60 20 the power produced at Munirabad could be utilised
Kos g i 100 30
fully in Mysore.
District Mahboobnagar
Narayanpeth 475 75 After this change, on the 24th August, 1957, the 200
Maktal 40 10 Planning Commission described Stage II of the Project
as "the project relating to the second stage development of
975 235 Tungabhadra Electric Project in the Karn at ak
regi on of t h e erst wh i l e Hyd er a bad State". ( 37 )
The Report also stated that (1) by 1963-64, at
least 20 per cent increase in the l oan might be ex-
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(32) SP III 215
(33) Report of the Tungabhadra Hydro-electric Project Stage II, SP III pp 265-287 (Ex APK 425)
(34) SP III pp 102-306 Ex MYK 292.
(35) SPIII p 285 Ex APK 426.
(36) SP II p 227 Ex MYK 291
(37) Letter of sanction of Stage II of the Project by the Planning Commission, SP III p. 215 (Ex. MYK 289).
 63

Claim of Andhra Pradesh for 3376 kW of power under

section 108(2) of the States Reorganisation Act.— Gulbarga District and Maktal and Narayanpeth Taluks
of
Andhra Pradesh contends (38) that the sanctioned the erstwhile Hyderabad State, as also the five towns
Tungabhadra Hydro-Electric Project envisaged the suppl y mentioned above, were transferred to the State of
of 3376 kW of power to Telengana towns and areas as Andhra Pradesh.
mentioned below :—
Andhra Pradesh contends that the load forecast in
the Project reports established a scheme of distribution of
(1) 5 towns . . . . . 1068 kW power to Telangana areas and towns, that in view of the
Tandur . . . . . 300 kW. States Reorganisation Act, 1956 neither the scope of
Kodangal . . . . . 60 kW. the Project nor the distribution of its benefits can be
Kosgi . . . . . 100 kW. varied, and that consequently it is entitled to the supply
Narayanpeth . . . . 475 kW. of 3,376 kW of power for the benefit of the towns and
Maktal . . . . . 40 kW. areas mentioned above.
975 kW
Claim for relief under section 108(2) is not estab- 202
lished.—
Assuming 1.15 per cent line losses and 1.05 diversity
It is not shown that the Tungabhadra Hydro Electric
factor, the equivalent demand on power station
Project established a scheme of distribution of power
was (9.75 x 1.15) / 1.05 = 1068kW. benefits. The load forecast in the project reports cannot
be regarded as a scheme of distribution of benefits.

The object of the load forecast was to assess the

(2) Sugar and cement factories for 3 probable future demand for the power generated at the
Taluks of Raichur and Gulbarga Power Station. The load forecast did not bind the power
districts transferred to Andhra station to supply power to any area. There was no
Pradesh out of 25 taluks comprised in certainty that the anticipated load demand would
the two districts before the re- materialise or that they would arise in Telengana areas and
organisation of States. The towns.
demand for 3 Taluks was
201 3/25 x 3000 = 360 kW . . . 360 kW. Before the 1st November, 1956, the Hyderabad
(3) Lift irrigation and agricultural Government sanctioned the adoption of the transmission
process-in3. The demand in the voltage of 110 kV. with a view to enable the Mysore
ratio of 6 taluks transferred to Government to utilise the power in Mysore areas only.
Andhra Pradesh and 22 taluks Accordingly the voltage of Munirabad Raichur line was
transferred to Mysore fixed at 110 kV., the line between Yadgir to Raichur was
was 6/28 x (5000 + 1000)= 1285 1285 kW.
retained at 66 kV. and no provision was made for Yadgir-
kW.
Total . . . . . 2713 kW.
Narayanpeth line or for Narayanpet h sub-station. On
.
(4) 20% increase in demand of the 3rd October, 1956, the Chief Engineer (Electrical),
2713 Hyderabad, stated that the entire power from the power
kW. in Stage II . . . . 543 kW. station in the first stage could be made available in the
. Estimated additional load in the
(5) Munirabad Raichur region. Thus the Hyderabad Government
towns clearly indicated that upon the reorganisation of States as 203
of Maktal, Narayanpur, Nashira- from the 1st November, 1956, the Mysore Government
bad, Kodangal and Kosgi out of would be at liberty to utilise the entire power produced by
total additional load of 1, 700 kW. in the Munirabad power station in Mysore areas.
Stage II . . . . 120 kW.
. Grand Total . . . . . 3376 kW. Stage I of the project was taken in hand but not
completed before the 1st November, 1956, but it is not
shown that the scope of Stage I of the project or the
Upon the reorganisation of States, Alampur and Gadwal distribution of the benefits to be derived from it has been
Taluks of Raichur District, Kodangal and Tandur Taluks of varied after the 1st November, 1956
Mahboobnagar District of

(38) SP III pp. 10-11, 13, 16-22.

IMofI&P/73—10
 64

Stage II of the project was taken in hand after
the 1st November, 1956 and the provisions of section
108(2) are not attracted to it. Moreover, Stage II of the
Project was tor development of the Karnataka areas only.
Upon the reorganisation of States, the Munirabad
power st ation with all its assets and liabilities
devolved on Mysore. There is no basis for the claim
that Andhra Pradesh is entitled to a share of the
power generated at the power station without paying
for it.
Andhra Pradesh is not entitled to any relief under
section 108 (2).
Claim of Andhra Pradesh for 10,000 kW. of power
under section 107 of the States Reorganisation Act.—
Andhra Pradesh contends that before the 1st November,
1956 there was an arrangement in regard to supply of
10,000 kW of power to Hyderabad city from
204 Munirabad Power Station, that such arrangement has
been modified by Mysore by reason of the fact that
Hyderabad city was transferred by the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956, from Hyderabad State in
which the power station was located and that consequently
suitable direction for the continuance of the
arrangement should be given under section 107 of the
States Reorganisation Act.(39)
The State of Hyderabad originally contemplated
that 10,000 kW of surplus power would be supplied
from Munirabad power station to Hyderabad city.(40)
However, in 1953, a Power Team consisting of
Shri S. A. Gadkari and Shri S. K. Menon, Members
Central Water and Power Commission, disapproved of
the proposal and in their report to the Planning
Commission observed that the surplus power of
Munirabad Power House could be utilised in the
205 south and south-western areas of the St ate and that
Ramagundam Thermal Station could supply power to
the Hyderabad area immediately.( 4 l ) Accordingly, the
proposal for the supply of surplus power to Hyderabad
city was abandoned and the reports of Stages I and II of
the project did not envisaged the supply of power to
Hyderabad city.
Claim for relief under section 107 is not established.—
The sanctioned Project Stages I and II did not envisage
supply of power to Hyderabad city. It is not established
that there was any arrangement before the 1st
November, 1956, for the supply of 10.000 kW of power
from Munirabad Power House to Hyderabad city. The
argument that such an arrangement is established by the
provision for 132 kV transmission line from Munirabad
to Raichur in Stage I of the Project cannot be accepted.
Had there been such a transmission line, it could be
more easily connected with the 132 kV line to
Hyderabad. But the provision for such a line does not
indicate an arrangement for supply of power from
Munirabad Power House to Hyderabad city. Even the
provision for 132 kV line from Munirabad to Raichur
was replaced by a provision for 110 kV line before
the 1st November, 1956. The Hyderabad Government
sanctioned the change with a view to facilitate the
utilisation of the power produced at Munirabad in
Karnataka areas.
Section 107 of the States Reorganisation Act is not 206
attracted, and the claim based on it must fail. Mysore
Second Five Year Plan.—
The Second Five Year Plan of Mysore (1956-57 to
1960-61) stated( 42 ) :—
"Due to the annexing of the northern regions of
Mysore, following the States Reorganisation, the
Munirabad Power Station, viz., Tunga-bhadra
Dam Left Bank Station is transferred to the
State with an amount of Rs. 424 lakhs for the
Station and the Transmission Lines and sub-
stations connected with it. 18,000 kW will be
available from this station during the plan
period. All the power under this scheme will be
distributed in the integrated region except 200
kW which will be supplied to Andhra
Territory."
This statement does not advance Andhra Pradesh's
claim for a share of power based on sections 107 and
108(2) of the States Reorganisation Act.
Andhra Pradesh does not claim any relief for the
supply of 200 kW of power on the basis of the above
statement.

(39) SP III pp. 23-32.

(40) Report of Hydro-electric Survey prepared in 1938, SP III p. 24; Plan of Power Scheme prepared in 1946, SP III pp.
42, 52;
Note of Jaffer Ali prepared in 1949, SP III p. 43; Memorandum on electrical development in Hyderabad State dated
20-11-1951
submitted by Hyderabad Government to Planning Commision, SP III p. 24; Letter of Zafir Ahmed dated 1-7-1952 to the
Planning
Commission SP III pp. 47-48; Sketch accompanying tender notice issued by the Government of Hyderabad in
1952, SP III
p 49.
(41) Letter dated 17-2-1953 from Shri Gadkari and Shri Menon to the Secretary, P.W.D. Hyderabad; SP III pp. 217-222.
(42) SP III p. 301 Ex. APK 428.
 65
207 The basis of the supply of 200 kW of power is not disclosed
nor is it known for what period and on what terms the supply
would be made.
Andhra Pradesh does not allege that there was any
agreement for supply of 200 kW of power to it, nor does it
seek or make out any, case for relief on the basis of an
agreement.
Answer to issues IV(B)(b) (iii), IV (B)(c) and IV
(B) (d).—
Andhra Pradesh is not entitled to any share in the power
generated in the Power House at Munirabad. Issue
1V(B)(C) is answered in the negative.
In view of this conclusion, there is no occasion for vesting
the control and administration of the Power House in the
Tungabhadra Board. Issue IV(B)(b) (in) is answered in
the negative.
Consequently, the question whether the dispute is a
water dispute within the meaning of the Inter-State Water
Disputes Act, 1956, does not arise. Issue IV(B) (d) is
disposed off accordingly.
Gotur and Kocheri weirs and Karlahatti Bhandara.—
At one stage, Mr. Krishna Rao, learned Counsel for
the State of Mysore, argued that we should impose
restrictions on the State of Maharashtra with regard to
Gotur and Kocheri weirs and Karlahatti Bhandara. On the
17th August, 1973, Mr. Krishna Rao stated that he did not
press his contentions regarding Gotur and Kocheri weirs 208
and Karlahatti Bhandara before this Tribunal. He added
that, if necessary, resort would be made by the State of
Mysore to the Government of India for giving appropriate
relief regarding them.
 209 CHAPTER VII
Diversion of the Godavari waters to the
Pleadings.—In their statements of case both Maharashtra
(1) and Mysore(2) prayed for a direction that the waters of
the river Godavari be diverted to the Krishna. Maharashtra
contended that this diversion would help to meet, partly or
fully, the shortage of waters in the Krishna. Since this water
shortage had been created by over-appropriations by
Andhra Pradesh with evident assistance of the Centre, it was
the responsibility of the Andhra Pradesh Government to
take up this work of diversion at its own cost and meet
its water requirement from its share of the Godavari waters
which would come to Andhra Pradesh on equitable
apportionment by the Tribunal. Mysore contended that if
Andhra Pradesh should require waters in excess of its
legitimate share to irrigate vast areas for raising a second or
even a third crop, it was open to that State to divert waters
210 from the Godavari, since the Godavari had plentiful waters for
such diversion. The necessity for the diversion would
appear from the report of the Krishna Godavari Commission
and the statement of the Union Minister for Irrigation and
Power in the Lok Sabha on the 23rd March, 1963.
Andhra Pradesh opposed the diversion and contended (3)
that the dispute was not a "water dispute" within the purview
of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act. Andhra Pradesh
contended that it was for Andhra Pradesh to consider
whether it should augment its supplies in the Krishna by
diversion of its share of the Godavari waters if its share of
the Krishna waters fell short of its commitments and that this
matter did not concern the other two States.
Issue. —Th e following issue (Issue VI) was
raised.—
"Is it possible to divert waters from the river
Godavari to the river Krishna ? Should such
diversion be made and, if so, when, by
whom, in what manner and at whose cost ? Is
the Tribunal competent to adjudicate on these
questions ?"
(1) MRK I pp. 204,213-222, 225
(2) MYK I pp. 55-57, 65.
(3) APK VII pp. 8-9.
66
Krishna (Issue VI)
Order of the Tribunal.—On April 19, 1971, the 211
Tribunal passed an Order in terms of the following
agreed minutes filed by Counsel for the States of
Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mysore, Madhya Pra
desh and Orissa :—
"(1) Parties have agreed that each of the States
concerned will be at liberty to divert any part
of the share of the Godavari waters allocated to
it by the Godavari Tribunal from the Godavari
basin to any other basin.
(2) In view of the pleadings and the statements
of the States concerned, none of the States
asks for a mandatory order for diversion of the
Godavari waters into the Krishna basin.
(3) All the other contentions of the parties are
reserved and will be decided in the Krishna
case.
(4) The Krishna case will be decided separately
from the Godavari case.
(5) The States of Madhya Pradesh and Orissa
are ordered to be discharged from the record
of this case and will no longer be parties to
this case.
(6) The States of Madhya Pradesh and Orissa
will bear and pay their own costs."
Clause 1 of the above order was amended by an order 212
passed in terms of agreed minutes filed by the parties on the
27th July, 1971. The amended clause 1 is as follows :—
"Parties have agreed that each of the States concerned
will be at liberty to divert any part of the share
of the Godavari waters which may be allocated
to it by the Godavari Tribunal from the Godavari
basin to any other basin."
 67
Similar orders were passed in the Godavari case.
Effect of Orders of the Tribunal.—In view of the above
orders, the State of Andhra Pradesh is free to divert its
share of the Godavari waters to the Krishna river, but it
can not be compelled to do so.
It is still necessary to consider whether the possibility
of the diversion of the Godavari waters to the Krishna or
the absence of such diversion affects the equitable share
of the parties in the Krishna waters.
Topo-sheet study.—The upper reaches of the
Godavari Valley are lower than the corresponding
reaches of the Krishna Valley. It is, therefore, not
213
possible to divert, by flow, any waters from the upper
reaches of the Godavari into the upper reaches of the
Krishna.
The highest suitable point on the Godavari is near
Pochampad from where its waters can be dropped into the
Nagarjunasagar reservoir on the Krishna. In the lower
reaches, there are possibilities of diverting the Godavari
waters by a link canal from the Godavari near Albaka to
Pulichintala on the Krishna and a link canal from the
Godavari at Polavaram to Vijayawada.
Earlier Proposal.—The Ramapadasagar Project of
1951 cont empl ated di versi on of the Godavari
waters by the Polavaram-Vijayawada link canal.(4) The
Khosla Committee(5) discussed the possibility of the
diversion.
Krishna Godavari Commission.—In 1961, the
Krishna Godavari Commission was asked to report on the
feasibility of diverting any surplus supplies in the Godavari
to the Krishna indicating the quantity to be diverted and
214 the cost involved. After examining this question, the
Commission recommended that the shortage in the
Krishna basin could be made up partly by the transfer of
such surplus supplies from the lower Godavari area
as could be utilised in the Krishna basin by the
following two link canals :—
(a) A link canal from the Godavari at Pola
varam to Vijayawada at a cost of about
Rs. 40 crores. This link canal would trans
fer about 211 T. M. Cft. of water to the
Krishna.
(b) A link canal from the Godavari near Albaka
or Singaraddy to Pulichintala on the Krishna
(4) Ramapadasagar Project Report 1951 Vol. I, pp. 14, 17, 20, Vol II, Index Map.
(5) Report of the Technical Committee for optimum utilization of the Krishna and Godavari Waters 1953, pp. 73-76,
101-103
(6) Krishna Godavari Commission Report, pp. 2, 290-294, 320-321.
at a cost of about Rs. 40 crores. This link
canal would transfer about 95 T. M. Cft. of
water to the Krishna.
The Commission considered that it should be possible,
on the basis of the information contained in their report as
well as field reconnaissance and some preliminary surveys
to be carried out, to prepare a preliminary project report
in about 6 months and establish the feasibility or
otherwise and the scope of the proposed di versions
from the Godavari to the Krishna. (6)
Later investigations.—As a result of the recom- 215
mendations of the Krishna Godavari Commission, the work
of investigating the diversion of the Godavari waters to
the Krishna was entrusted to the Central Water and
Power Commission and two Circles were opened, one for
investigating the diversion links and the other for
measuring discharges at some key stations on the
Krishna and Godavari rivers. The Govern- ment of India
set up the Godavari Krishna Technical Committee to
review the progress of work in the two Circles and give
suitable guidance to them. The feasibility of the link
canals was discussed in four meetings of the Godavari
Krishna Technical Committee between 1963 and 1966
and in inter-State meetings held in August and October
1967. No agreement on the subject was reached between
the concerned States.
Godavari-Pulichintala link canal.—The Krishna
Godavari Commission considered that it might be
possible to divert 95 T. M. C. of the Godavari waters
annually from this link canal. However, it is no longer
contended by Maharashtra and Mysore that this link
canal is technically feasible. Accordingly, we are not
called upon to consider the possibility of diversion by this
link canal.
Polavaram-Vijayawada link canal.—This link canal
formed part of the Ramapadasagar Project which was later
abandoned. The Polavaram Barrage scheme proposed by
Andhra Pradesh consists of a barrage at Polavaram on
the Godavari and two canal s. The right bank canal of
this scheme would run up to Vijayawada. At the first 216
meeting of the Godavari Krishna Technical Committee,
all members agreed that Polavaram would be the best
site for the link canal and that since the Polavaram
barrageas well as
4
 68

the Vijayawada barrage would have no storage of their
own, it would be necessary to have a storage site on the
Godavari river upstream of Polavaram to provide the
necessary storage for meeting the requirements of both the
Godavari and Krishna Delta canals.(7) At the second
meeting of the Committee(8) it was decided that the base
study for the link canal would be made on the basis that the
link canal would take off by a diversion structure from near
about Polavaram and would get regulated supplies from a
storage higher up or releases from a number of projects
high up. At the second, third and fourth meetings of the
Committee (9), and at inter-State meetings held in August
and October 1967 several storage sites on the Godavari were
discussed, but no agreement was reached. Maharashtra has
217
stated that storages at Inchampalli and Ippur at the requisite
level are not permissible in view of the extensive
submergence of areas in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh
and that except the Bhopalpatnam and Watra Badruk
Projects no other storage for meeting the reasonable
irrigation needs of Andhra Pradesh is feasible.(10) This
statement is not disputed by Mysore.
ly supports this proposal(12). Andhra Pradesh opposes the
proposal(13).
Proposals for Bhopalpatnam and Watra Badruk projects.—
Before the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, Madhya
Pradesh proposed Bhopalpatnam Project Stages I and II
as a joint project of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra(l4).
The note on the Project stated that the proposal was based 219
on topo-sheets and that field investigations were being
undertaken. Maharashtra supported the proposal(15) The
Project would submerge large areas in the territories of both
Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.
Before the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, Andhra
Pradesh proposed the Watra Badruk (Pranhita) Project
and stated that it would be for the mutual benefit of
Maharashtra and Andhra States if the project was taken
up as a joint venture. (16) Andhra Pradesh stated that
detailed investigation of the scheme was in progress.
The project would submerge large areas in the territories of
both Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Maharashtra
supported the proposal. (17)

Revised Maharashtra Scheme.—In its final state-ment11)
regarding the Godavari diversion, Maharashtra proposes that
for meeting the needs of the Krishna Delta, 146 T. M. C. of
the Godavari waters may be diverted by the Polavaram-
Vijayawada Link canal from the run of the river supplies
and regulated releases of 171 T. M. C. from the
Bhopalpatnam storage and 182 T. M. C. from the Watra
Badruk storage. The Bhopalpatnam storage on the
Indravati river would be a joint project of Madhya Pradesh
and Maharashtra and the Watra Badruk storage on the
Pranhita river would be a joint project of Andhra Pradesh
218
and Maharashtra. One of the two storages is necessary and
sufficient for the diversion scheme. Sufficient surplus supply
from Andhra Pradesh's share in the Godavari waters after
meeting its reasonable requirements will be available for
diversion to the Krishna. The right bank canal of the
Polavaram barrage scheme with suitable modifications can
serve as the Polavaram-Vijayawada link canal. Mysore
general-
There is no material before the Tribunal to show that
the field investigations have been completed. No joint
project report of either the Bhopalpatnam Project or the
Watra Badruk Project has been filed before the Tribunal.
After the project reports are prepared, joint cost-benefit 220
schemes will have to be finalised and it will be then for the
States to consider whether any of the joint projects is
feasible or advantageous. It is not possible at this stage to say
that Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh will enter into an
agreement for the undertaking of the joint Bhopalpatnam
Project or that Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra will enter
into an agreement for the undertaking of the joint Watra
Badruk Project. In the absence of an agreement, there cannot
be a joint project or storage either at Bhopalpatnam or Watra
Badruk. One of the two storages is necessary and essential for
the diversion scheme proposed by Maharashtra. On the
present materials it is not possible to say with certainty
that either of the two storages will be available in the near
future.

(7) MRK I p. 217; MRDK II pp. 79-83.

(8) MRDK II p. 85.
(9) MRDK II pp. 83-113.
(10) SP II, p. 10.
(11) SP I1, pp. 2-39.
(12) SP II, pp. 40-47
(13) SP II, pp. 48-63
(14) Notes on Bhopalpatnam Project I and II, MPPG XI. Similar proposal was made before the Krishna Godavari
Commission,
see KGCR Ann. XV p. 241.
(15) MRPG XXXVIII p. 193, MRG II pp. 78-81; MRK I p. 220.
(16) Note on Pranhita Project APPG XI pp. 23-24. Separate projects on the Pranhita river near Watra Badruk were
proposed by
Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra before the Krishna Godavari Commission, see KGCR Ann. XV pp. 139-141,
505-507.
(17) MRG II, pp. 82-85; MRK I, p. 220.
 69
Possibility of Godavari diversion and equitable ap-
portionment of the Krishna waters.—It may be that sooner
or later either the Bhopalpatnam Project or the Watra
Badruk Project may materialise and in that event the
scheme for diversion Of the Godavari waters to the
Krishna river for meeting a part of the requirements of the
Krishna Delta Canals can be carded out. But the remote
221 possibility of diversion of the Godavari waters to the
Krishna is not a sufficient ground now for cutting down
the allocation of an equitable share of the Krishna
waters to Andhra Pradesh for meeting its needs.
Maharashtra argument regarding equities.—Maha-
rashtra argues that in view of the statement of the
Union Minister for Irrigation and Power in the Lok
Sabha on the 23rd March, 1963 and other statements of
the Union Government regarding diversion of the Godavari
waters into the Krishna, equities have arisen in favour of
Maharashtra and Mysore and that if the diversion of the
Godavari waters to the Krishna does not materialise, the
allocations for Nagarjunasagar and Srisailam Project of
Andhra Pradesh should be suitably cut down and
modified. We are unable to accept this contention for
the following reasons :—
In his Lok Sabha speech on the 23rd March, 63,(18) the
Union Minister for Irrigation & Power said that
Nagarjunasagar Stage it could be cleared only after
investigations on Godavari supplies would be completed.
He did not say that in the absence of the Godavari
diversion the sanctioned Nagarjunasagar Project
222 (Stage I) would be modified. Nagarjunasagar Project
was undertaken in 1955 and its sanction was not dependent
on the availability of supplies from the Godavari.
The Union Minister stated that Srisailam Project
should be suitably modified after taking into account the
requirement of 264 T. M. C. for Nagarjunasagar Project,
the possibility of diversion of the Godavari waters and
inflows between Srisailam and Nagarjunasagar. Suitable
action was taken on this statement. On March 26,
1964, Srisailam Project was sanctioned by the Planning
Commission. (10) The sanction was on the basis of
ultimate water release of 180 T. M. C. from Srisailam.
The preliminary sanction letter of June 7, 1963 and the
letter and note of Planning Commission dated July 5,
1963 (20) pointed out that even on the assumption that
the Godavari diversion would materialise, it could be
safely assumed that the
(18) MYDK I pp. 156-171.
(19) MRK II, p. 310.
(20) APDK VIII, pp. 1-5; MYDK II, p. 320.
(21) MRK II, pp. 205-218.
minimum release for power generation from Srisailam
would be 180 T. M. C. annually. If there is no diversion
of the Godavari waters into the Krishna, it will be
necessary to release more than 180 T. M. C. annually 223
from Srisailam to meet the requirements of
Nagarjunasagar Project and Krishna Delta Canals. The
sanctioned Srisailam Project is not dependent or
conditioned on the availability of additional supplies in the
Krishna from the Godavari diversion.
On March 23, 1963, the Union Minister also stated that
pending final allocation of waters, Maharashtra, Mysore
and Andhra Pradesh should withdraw respectively 400 T.
M. C., 600 T. M. C. and 800 T. M. C. of supplies from
the Krishna. At a meeting between the representatives of
Maharashtra and Union Governments on April 22,
1963(21). Shri S. B. Chavan, Minister of Irrigation &
Power, Government of Maharashtra said that it was not
clear on what basis the withdrawals had been allowed. Shri
Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim, Union Minister for
Irrigation and Power stated that the withdrawals
indicated by him were only estimates and were not in
any way final allocations. Shri M. R. Sachdev, Secretary
to the Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation and
Power stated that sizeable surpluses would be available
for further allocation to Maharashtra and Mysore as a 224
result of diversion of the surplus waters of the
Godavari to the Krishna but the quantum would be
known after the investigations would be completed.
Shri C. L. Handa, Member, Central Water and Power
Commission stated that additional supplies would be
available as a result of diversion of the surplus waters of
the Godavari estimated at 300 T. M. C. by the Gulhati
Commission, and from regeneration or salvage of irrigation
flows ; but he could not say how much of the additional
supply would be available to Maharashtra. Shri O. V.
Alagesan, Minister of State, Irrigation & Power said
that 300 T. M. C. as a result of the Godavari diversion
and 300 T. M. C. as a result of regeneration or salvage
i.e. in all 600 T.M.C. would be available and the
allocations had been made on that basis. Shri Handa stated
that the surpluses on account of regeneration and salvage
could not be quantified. Shri B. Y. Barve, Minister of
Finance, Government of Maharashtra stated that,
according to Maharashtra, hardly any further supplies in
addition to the withdrawals of 400, 600 and 800 T. M. C.
indicated in the Union Minister's statement would be
available for allocation from the Krishna. No definite 225
assurance was given to Maharashtra by the Union
Government that investigations regarding the Godavari
diversion had
 70
been completed and such diversion was technically feasible,
or that any portion of the additional supplies in the Krishna
from the diversion would be available to Maharashtra, nor
did Maharashtra act upon such an assurance. No
representative of Andhra Pradesh was present at the
meeting. Our attention was not drawn to any other
statement of the Union Government in this connection.
Andhra Pradesh made no representations concerning
Godavari diversion for which it can be saddled with any
equities in favour of Maharashtra and Mysore.
The States of Maharashtra and Mysore submitted that in
the event of diversion of the waters of the river Godavari to the
river Krishna, there should be a self-executing order
providing for equitable distribution of such waters.
Alternatively, they submitted that in the event of
augmentation of the water of the river Krishna by the
diversion of the waters of the_ Godavari, the Ganga or any
other river, liberty should be reserved to them to claim the
benefits of the diverted waters. The State of Andhra Pradesh
strongly disputed
226
these claims. The question whether the States of
Maharashtra and Mysore should be given any share in the"
diverted waters will require examination if and when the
waters of the river Godavari or any other river are diverted
into the river Krishna. We are providing for review of
our final order after the 31st May, 2000. We are inclined
to think that all the States should be at liberty to urge their
respective contentions before the reviewing authority after
the 31st May, 2000 and not earlier. Accordingly, we propose
to pass the following order :—
"In the event of the augmentation of the waters of the
river Krishna by the diversion of the waters of any
other river, no State shall be debarred from
claiming before the aforesaid reviewing authority
or tribunal that it is entitled to greater share in
the waters of the river Krishna on account of such
augmentation nor shall any State be debarred
from disputing such claim".
Issue VI is answered accordingly.
 CHAPTER V1I1

Ground Water

227 Ground Water.—The fresh water resources of a basin
include both surface and ground water. Both surface and
ground water are replenished by rainfall an d for m pa r t
of t h e ci r c u l a t or y p at t e r n of t h e h y d r ol o gi c
c y cl e . If t h e w a t er t a bl e at t h e t op of t h e zone
of sat urati on i s above i n level of the water surface in
a stream, ground water seeps into the stream; but when
the water table is below this level, there is seepage from the
stream into the porous layers of rocks. Thus, ground water
supplies the relatively stable and uniform base flow of
the stream and is, in its turn, replenished by the stream flow.
Depletion of ground water by pumping or otherwise may
reduce the stream flow somewhere else in the river basin
(1).
For equitable apportionment of waters of an interstate
river system, the underground water resources of a State
is a relevant factor. Ground water may furnish alternative
means for satisfying the State's irrigation needs. Moreover
228
there may be such a close connection between the surface and
ground water resources of a river basin that it may be
necessary to limit the use of ground water to prevent
diminution of the water supply downstream(2).
Under the Indian law, every owner of land has the
right to collect and dispose off within his own limits all water
under the land which does not pass in a defined channel(3 ).
The Indian law is based on the common law of England.
The common law doctrine(4) has been considerably
modified in England by the Water Resources Act 1963,
Chapter 38, sections 23 to 32, but the general Indian law
continues to be the same as before.
However, ground water flow is not fully calculable from the
technical point of view and, therefore, not fully cognisable
as yet from the legal point of view(5). Being invisible, ground
water resources baffle quantitative measurement (6). 229
In the Krishna basin, systematic ground water surveys
have not been carried out, and sufficient data of ground
water resources are not available(7 ). In view of this lack
of data, the Tribunal passed an order on the 1st April,
1971, in terms of the following agreed minutes
(Annexure 'A' to the order) filed by the States of Andhra
Pradesh, Maharashtra and Mysore.
"Having regard to the fact that there is no available
data relating to underground water which the parties can
place before this Honourable Tribunal for the purpose of
deciding the present dispute, the parties state, for the
purpose of this dispute, as follows: —
1. The underground water resources of the States
concerned will not be regarded as alternative
means of satisfying their needs and will not be
taken into account for purposes of the equit
able apportionment of the waters of the river
Krishna and the physical basin (river-valley)
thereof.
2. The States do not ask the Tribunal to put any 230
restrictions on the use of underground water
by the States."

(1) The Year Book of Agriculture 1955, Water, (The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture) pp. 48, 49, 73; O.E. Meinzer,
Hydrology pp. 399;
432; E. Kuiper, Water Resources Development, Planning, Engineering and Economics (1965) p. 8; Ground Water
Studies—
Edited by R.H. Brown and others, UNESCO 1972, para 1.1.2.
(2) Arizona v. California 376 U.S. 340. (Clause IV of the decree); Masters Report in the same case cited in A.H.
Garretson and
others, The Law of International Drainage Basins 1967 pp. 525-526, see also ibid pp. 585-586.
(3) The Indian Easements Act, 1882, Illustration (g) Report of the Indus (Rau) Commission Vol. I, pp. 54-55.
(4) See Chasemore v. Richards (1859) L.R. 7 H.L.C. 349.
(5) A.H. Garretson and others, The Law of International Drainage Basins (1967) p. 312; L.A. Teclaff, The River Basin in
History and
Law, p. 10.
(6) The Nation's Water Resources, United States Water Resources Council 1968, pp. 3-2-1, 3-2-7.
(7) Report of the Krishna Godavari Commission, p. 145; Report of the Irrigation Commission 1972 Vol. III Part II, p.
194.

71
1 M of I&P/73—11
 72
On the 25th September, 1972, the parties filed the
following agreed statement:—
"With reference to Annexure 'A' to the order of the
1st April, 1971, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra
and Mysore are agreed that for clause 2 of the said
Annexure 'A' the following clauses 2 and 3 be
substituted :—
2. The States will be free to make use of un
derground water within their respective
State territories.
3. This agreement will not be taken in any way
to alter the rights, if any, under the law
for the time being in force, of private indi
viduals, bodies or authorities.''
On a consideration of all relevant materials, we
propose to pass the following order: —
"The Tribunal hereby declares that the States of
Maharashtra, Karanataka and Andhra Pra-, desh will
be free to make use of underground water within their
respective State territories in the Krishna river basin.
This declaration shall not be taken to alter in any way
the rights, if any, under the law for the time being in force 231
of private individuals, bodies or authorities.
Use of underground water by any State shall not be
reckoned as use of the water of the river Krishna."
 CHAPTER IX
232
Determination of Dependable Flow
This chapter would cover discussions on the first sub-
issue of Issue No. II. The main Issue II is to this effect :—
"What directions, if any, should be given for the
equitable apportionment of the beneficial use
of the waters of the Krishna river and the river
valley?"
The sub-issue (1) under discussion in this chapter
is:—
"On what basis should the available waters be
determined?"
This sub-issue broadly speaking is concerned with the
determination of the quantum of water which is available for
allocation between the different States. As observed in the
Krishna Godavari Commission Report in Chapter XI
relating to 'Hydrologic Charac-terstics', the source of all
water in the Krishna and the Godavari basins, whether in
stream flow or under the surface, is the rain which falls
within the area. There is no evidence of any sub-soil flow
from outside getting into the basin. So far as
underground water is concerned, all the three States would
be free to use the underground water within their respective
State areas as they wish.
The subject relating to the availability of the surface
water has engaged much attention and time of this
233 Tribunal and has been the subject matter of acute controversy
between the parties. The oral evidence regarding dependable
flow commenced on the 6th September, 1971 with the
testimony of Mr. Framji (MRW-I), the expert witness of
the State of Maharashtra. The principal witness Prof. Rao
(APW-5), who appeared on behalf of the State of Andhra
Pradesh was also examined at great length and his evidence
concluded on the 30th March, 1972. The arguments on the
sub-issue started on the 3rd July, 1972 with a lengthy
address by the learned Advocate General of the State of
Andhra Pradesh. He was followed by the Advocate General
of Maharashtra, whose argument in the main has been
adopted by Mr. Krishna
73
Rao, appearing on behalf of the State of Mysore. It is a
tribute to the learning and ability, of the learned counsel and
the engineers of the three States as also to their mutual
appreciation of the points of each other which have
prompted them to conclude a settlement on this
controversial point and therefore it is now necessary only
to refer to the barest facets of this crucial question.
It is generally agreed that the volume of water which 234
passes over and through the Vijayawada Weir would give us
a fair idea of the volume of flow in the river after the
upstream utilisations are added to it. From Vijayawada
Weir onwards the river Krishna forms into a delta and
flows eventually into the sea.
In the notes submitted by the Central Water and Power
Commission on the utilisation of supplies in the Krishna
river for consideration of the Conference held on the 27-
28th July, 1951 which is mentioned in the discussion of
Issue I, it was observed thus (MRDK Vol. I, page 117)
:—
"Discharge observations of the river Krishna are
available for Bezwada (Vijayawada) site in
Madras for the year 1895 to 1945 i.e. for 51
years. Actual yearly run off are given in Statement
'A'. The mean annual run off comes to 1957
T.M. Cft. This, however, is available in 21 years
only out of 54 and hence cannot be taken as
dependable supply. Runoff of 1800, 1700 and
1450 are available in 30 years, 37 years and 44
years respectively. Hence dependable supplies at
Bezwada excluding present utilisation above may
be taken as 1450 T.M.Cft. This tallies with the
figure worked out by Hyderabad. The Madras
figure of 2000 is too high".
It was on this basis that the allocation was made between the
different States in the Conference of 1951. For reasons
which have already been stated, we are unable to attach 235
any importance to the agreement reached on the 28th
July, 1951.
 74
Broadly speaking, the position of Maharashtra and
Mysore is that for the purpose of irrigation the volume of
available water of the river Krishna should be
computed at 75 per cent dependability. It would be a safe
basis as the flow at 75 per cent dependability would be
available in 3 out of 4 years. The contention of the
State of Andhra Pradesh is that the figure of 1745
recorded in 1951 should be stuck to and that 86 per cent
dependability is a reliable criterion.
Dependable flow is the magnitude of river flow which
may be assuredly expected at a given point on the river on
some scientific or rational basis inspiring confidence. We may
mention here a simple statistical method for determining the
percentage dependability of the flow of a river at a
particular point. For ascertaining the percentage
dependability of the flow at a given point of a stream where
a continuous record of flow for a number of N years is
available, the flow discharge data is arrayed in descending
order. Each year's flow so arrayed is assigned the serial
236 number from the top and if May be the serial number
of the flow in any year, the percentage dependability for the
flow of that year is calculated by applying the formula
M / (N X 100) Some authorities say that the percen-
tage dependability should be arrived at by applying the
formula M x 100 but all the parties in
N+l
this case have adopted the formula (M/N)x100
If flow at a particular dependability is to be computed
and is not directly available from the flow series as
mentioned hereinbefore then the flow data for the two
consecutive years—one just above the required dependability
and the other just below the required dependability is taken
into consideration and proportionate adjustment is made to
arrive at the flow at that particular dependability.
For example, take a series of flow discharge data of
the river Krishna at Vijayawada for 78 years. If, in this
series, the flow of a certain year having the serial number 58
is 2063 T.M.C., the percentage dependability of the
flow of 2063 T.M.C. is (58/78)x 100 = 74.36 per
cent and if the flow of the next year having the serial
number 59 is 2057 T.M.C., the percentage dependability
of the flow of 2057 T.M.C. is (59/78) x 100 = 75 .64 per
237
cent. Therefore, in this flow series of 78 years the flow of
(2063 + 2057) / 2 or 2060
T.M.C. has the percentage dependability of
(74.36 + 75.64) / 2 = 75 per cent. In other words, the
flow of 2060 T.M.C. is expected to appear in the river at
Vijayawada in 75 out of 100 years and is called the 75 per
cent dependable flow of the river Krishna at Vijayawada.
The Committee on Plan Projects of 1960 set up by
the National Development Council examined both the
Koyna (Maharashtra) and Nagarjunasagar (Andhra
Pradesh) projects in some detail and at page 5, paragraph
2.23 of AP-27, made the following observations :—
"It is, therefore, for consideration whether the scope
of projects for assured irrigation should be
extended beyond the dependable yield adopted in
the 1951 award. This question has been discussed
with Central Water and Power Commission and it
has been suggested by them that many of the
current projects under sanction are planned on
seventy-five per cent to eighty per cent
dependability and this should be adopted for
the Krishna basin. The Project Authorities have
expressed similar views during discussions. This
question has also been discussed with the
Consultative Committee and they have expressed
that for the assured irrigation projects on Krishna
river, a dependability of 75 per cent may be
adopted, and that the same percentage be adopted
in respect of projects of all States on the Krishna
river."
In the statement regarding the Krishna and the 238
Godavari waters laid by the Union Minister for Irrigation
and Power on the Table of the Lok Sabha on the 23rd
March, 1963 reproduced at page 156 of MYDK Vol. I, it
was stated as follows at page 164:—
"In the matter of availability of supplies, from overall
considerations, a criterion based on 75 per cent
dependability has been considered to be the
most suitable and for the purposes of our projects
that have to go forward, this criterion of
dependability may be adopted".
We shall deal with this subject further in connection
with our decision on the question of apportionment of
water of the river Krishna between the three States.
It would be recalled that in the minutes of the
proceedings of the Conference of July, 1951, it was
 75

stated by Shri Venkatacharya, Chief Engineer of Madras 'Flood Hydrographs' by Gail A. Hathaway and A. L.
that the discharge figures of the Krishna river which had been Cochran in the book "Engineering for Dams" by the Late
worked out in the note were underestimated by about 8 per William P. Greager and others at pages 140 and 141 Vol. I
cent. This observation was merely "noted" and the (Fourth Printing, March, 1950).
allocations were made at 86 per cent dependability.
They are as follows :—
The first term of reference of the Krishna Goda-vari "Rainfall.
Commission appointed by the Government of India on
the 1st May, 1961 was — a. Intensity, duration, sequence.
b. Areal distribution during successive time in
"(1) To report on the availability of supplies in the tervals.
Krishna on the basis of annual flow at Vijayawada
and other points taking into account upstream Infiltration.
239 utilisation and allowing for regeneration :— a. Initial loss, or loss before appreciable run
off begins.
(i) for 86 per cent dependability as assumed in
1951 ; b. Minimum average capacity, or in some cases,
the relation of capacity to field-moisture con
(ii) for 75 per cent dependability ; and ditions.
(iii) for such other criterion of dependability as 241
Regimen of Runoff.
may be considered appropriate".
a. Effects of basin configuration and arrange
The Commission, while submitting its report on the ment of tributaries.
21st August, 1962, did not record any definite answer to
the question covered by the first term of reference and it was b. Effects of natural storage:
stated that because of the uneven distribution of discharge 1. In tributaries, lakes, swamps, etc.
sites there are many sub-basins in which no river flow data 2. In principal stream channels and valleys.
exists. The Commission strongly recommended as a matter
of first urgency, vide paragraph 18—34 of its Report, the c. Effects of artificial structures :
establishment on a permanent basis and on scientific lines of 1. Reservoirs.
daily discharge observations at 38 sites on the Krishna River
2. Channel improvements.
System. The Commission observed that this data is essential
for the individual projects, for the preparation of an 3. Land-use practices.
integrated basin-wide plan, for the subsequent operation of
d. Effects of slopes :
such a plan and the regulation to the best advantage of the
available river waters in any year. The Central 1. In principal stream channels and flood
Government was charged with the responsibility of this plains.
240 important work and also to set up a special organisation for 2. In drainage areas tributary to principal
this purpose under the Ministry of Irrigation and Power. Fur- runoff channels.
ther, it was stated in paragraph 18—37 of this Report : e. Effects of land coverage :
—
1. Forested areas.
"It is unfortunate that no attempt has so far been made 2. Cultivated areas.
to undertake regular discharge observations at the 3. Pasture lands and barren areas.
sites of proposed projects. Even for the
projects under construction, little attention has f. Ability of subsurface soil to transmit infiltra
been paid to the observation and compilation of ted water to surface channels within the
accurate flow data.'' period required for direct runoff to pass
through the channel storage phase of runoff."
It will be relevant at this stage to mention some of the
predominant factors which influence the runoff. This factors Each of these factors has its own effect on the runoff.
have been enumerated in the artical The cumulative effect of all these factors has to be taken
into consideraton in determining the total quantity of water
available for utilisation in any region. There are obvious
difficulties in computing runoff of
 76
a mighty river like the Krishna which has its origin in high
242 mountainous region covered with forests having heavy
intensity of rainfall and which in its course towards the sea
descends at various degrees of slopes and crosses through
forested areas, cultivated areas, pasture lands and barren
areas gathering water on its way from innumerable
nullahs, streams and tributaries some of which are as mighty
as the river Krishna itself. Measuring water accurately in the
Krishna basin by establishing rainfall runoff relationship is a
difficult problem.
But the other method of determining water available in a
basin is to measure water flowing in a stream. Stream flow
though dependent on so many factors of diverse character and
varying degree of intensity, represents the residual water
available in a drainage basin. Stream flow represents the
integrated results of all meteorological and hydrological
factors operative in the drainage basin and it is the only
phase of the hydrologic cycle for which reasonably accurate
measurements can be made of the volumes involved ( 1).
This method of measuring the water available in the
Krishna basin has been followed since a long time.
At Vijayawada the construction of an anicut across t he
243 river Kri shna was sanctioned by the Court of
Directors of the East India Company. It was built in
1852—55. The primary purpose of the construction of the
weir was for irrigating parts of Guntoor and
Masaulipattam Districts. The Anicut was also utilised for
measuring the water of the river flowing over it by applying
the formula known as M.D.S.S. formula. The importance of
the measurement of discharge at Vijaywada is that after the
river had passed the Vijayawada Anicut, it receives practically
no contribution of water from surface runoff due to rainfall.
Thus, after taking into account the utilisations, discharge
over the Anicut reflects the amount of water available due to
run off in the entire Krishna basin. The plan and section of
the Anicut are found in G.T-Walch's The Engineering Works
of the Kistna Delta', Vol. II (APK-582). The changes
brought in the Anicut after its construction are described by
Walch hi the note in the Plan as follows :—
"The crest of the Anicut was raised above what is
here shown by 1 foot in 1891-92 and by another 2,
feet in 1894. This 2 feet was removed in 1897 and
for it falling shutters substituted in 1898. The solid
portion of the crest in front of the shutters is
now 1–'3"
(1) Introduction to Hydrometeorology by Bruce and Clark—page 80 (First edition, 1966 and reprinted in 1969).
higher than the crest as shown on this plan; it is
taken as + 47.50 and the top of the shutters
when up + 50.25."
The dimensions of the Anicut which were taken in
consideration for calculating discharges are shown in Fig. 1 244
in the Krishna Reservoir Project Vol. II Ex-APK-403 at page
1 and the cross-section of Vijayawada Anicut is shown as
Fig. HI at the same page. In the description of the Anicut
as given at pages 1 and 2 of the Krishna Reservoir Project—
Vol. II reference is made to the falling shutters fixed on the
Anicut :—
"The length (3,076.75 ft.) of the horizontal crest of
the work is fitted with falling shutters which
are 10 ft. long each and when raised have an
effective height of 2.75 ft.
When down, these shutters lie prone behind the
masonry crest and offer no obstruction to the
passage of water. The flanks of the anicut are
sloped at 1 in 23.21 on the left and at 1 in 23
on the right side. For purposes of calculation
the slope on both sides is taken as 1 in 23."
In 1925 three feet falling shutters were removed and
six feet falling shutters of Zifta weir type were installed. This
change is noted in "College of Engineering Manual,
Irrigation" by Ellis (Ex. APK-640) at page 424,
paragraph 579-A. It is stated in that Manual that :—
"Due to increased demand for water in the expanding
delta, the three feet falling shutters of the type
shown in Fig. 131, were removed and 6 feet
falling shutters of Zifta weir type installed on
the Kistna anicut at Bez-wada in 1925. They
are made up of 29 sets of 11 shutters each, a
single shutters being 10 feet long.
The total length comes to 3193'4-1/4" including the
spaces between the shutters. These spaces are 245
closed up with canvass staunching frames during
seasons of scarcity. These shutters are intended to
maintain water over the crest of the anicut upto 6
feet. They are tripped set after set as water rises
above 6 feet until all the sets are down. The
tripping of these sets is effected by hydraulic
pressure maintained and worked from Seetana-
 garam and Bezwada side valve houses, for each of the two
valves of the anicut by means of separate pipe connections
taken to the first shutter (master shutter) of each set. As soon
as the master shutter is tripped by the application of pressure
from the valve house, the other ten shutters connected to
this with axles and clutches will also fall down one after
the other.
When the water level begins to go down below 6
feet raising of the shutters set after set is done by
means of travelling machine otherwise called
'plough' which is worked by steam power.
In the off-position the shutters lie flat on the
masonry crest of the body wall the plough moving
forward on its track on the anicut catches up the
roller in the middle of the free end of the
shutters. This roller moves along over an
inclined track in the plough so that as the
plough goes forward, the shutter rises to its
vertical position".
Formulae as given in the Kistna Reservoir Project,
Vol IT at pages 2 to 9, paragraphs 5 to 13(1) were being
applied for calculating the discharge at Vijayawada Weir.
These formulae made certain assumptions regarding the
velocity of approach which are given in paragraph 6 at
pages 2-3 of the said report. The formula for Anicut
discharge with clear overfall is given in paragraph 7. The
246 Krishna Anicut was taken as submerged when the flow
was 6 feet above the crest and the formula for discharge
calculations on submerged Anicut as given in paragraphs 8
and 9 at pages 5 to 7 of the said report was being applied.
Methods for calculating discharges of under-sluices and
canals are mentioned in paragraph 12 and 13 at page 8 of
the said Report. According to Annex-ure II of the Report of
the Krishna Godavari Commission, there were some minor
changes in these formulae from time to time
Annexure II to the Krishna Godavari Commission Report
at pages xiv and xv in paragraph 8 gives the details of the
manner in which the discharges over the Anicut were
computed after 6' shutters were installed in 1925. The
Krishna Anicut was divided into the following five parts
:—
(a) The central portion of the Anicut 3,193.35 feet
long is in the form of a weir with a crest width
of 6.0 feet with a 20 feet extension upstream at
a slightly lower level. It
77
had six feet high automatic shutters on top of
the crest. The top level of the shutters was
R.L. 53.05 and the effective crest level,
when the shutters were down, was R.L. 47.22.
(b) The Vijayawada side level flank, 174.33 feet
long with crest at R. L. 53.05
(c) The Vijayawada side sloping flank, 108.92
feet long with crest rising from R.L. 53.05
to R.L. 57.40, at a slope of 1 in 25.04.
(d) The Seethanagram side level flank, 156 feet 247
long, with crest at R.L. 53.05.
(e) The Seethanagaram side sloping flank, 126
feet long, with crest rising from R.L. 53.05
to R.L. 58.30, at a slope of 1 in 24.
The discharge Q over the Anicut was calculated when
the down stream water level was below the crest level by
applying the formula —
When the downstream level was above the crest level
of the Anicut, the discharge Q was calculated by applying the
formula —
Q=ML[(dH-h)3/2.ha3/2+CLd √2glhTha) .. .. (2)
The values of L, H, h, ha,C and d are as mentioned in
paragraph 8 of Annexure II. Thus it will be seen that
whenever downstream water level was above the crest level
the second formula was applied. This method of calculating
the discharges is the main point of controversy between the
parties.
There was a breach in the Krishna Anicut in the year
1952 and in its place construction of the Krishna (Prakasam)
Barrage was sanctioned. The construction of the Krishna
(Prakasam) Barrage started in the year 1953 and was
completed in the year 1962.
There is a serious controversy between the parties with
respect to the dimensions of the Krishna Anicut which is no 248
more in existence, the formulae employed in calculating
the discharges of the water flow over the Anicut and the
gauge or gauges with reference to which calculations were
made. We proceed to refer to the nature of controversy
between the parties on these points.
 78
The case of the State of Maharashtra regarding the
assessment of discharge of the Krishna river at Vija-yawada
Weir is set out at pages 9-18, paragraphs 2.2.1 to 2.2.5 of
MRK-Vol. I. It has been stated in paragraph 2.2.5 that
Shri Venkatacharya, Chief Engineer of Madras had stated in
the 1951 Conference that discharge figures of the Krishna
river which had been worked out in the Central Water and
Power Commission note were under-estimated by about 8
per cent. This together with the correction for inclusion of
the higher yield for years 1945 to 1950, showed that the
estimated 86 per cent dependable yield would have been
1977 T.M.C. (rounded to say, 2000 T.M.C.) instead of
1715 T.M.C (rounded to 1745 T.M.C.) as adopted by the
Planning Commission for the supplies at 86 per cent
dependability only. The 75 per cent dependable yield
would be much more approximately 2200 T.M.C. It is
stated that this figure has been confirmed since then by the
three dimensional model experiments carried out at the
249 Central Water and Power Research Station, Poona in
1967-68. on the basis of which the Central Water and
Power Commission has reconstructed the flow data at Vijaya-
wada. According to that study the 75 per cent dependable
flow at the river Krishna at Vijayawada comes to 2176
T.M.C.
It is further stated that the Krishna Godavari Com-
mission has also given the run off figures for the subsequent
years 1951-52 to 1959-60 and that if these 10 years are
added to the previous 50 years, the 75 per cent
dependable yield would increase to 2188 T.M.C. which
may be rounded off to approximately 2200 T.M-C., as the
75 per cent dependable flow at Vijayawada including the
existing utilisations. The concluding part of paragraph
2.4.5 is as follows :—
"Thus, in the view of the Maharashtra State, the best
estimate (as of date) of the available total
flows at Vijayawada on the basis of 75 per
cent dependability would be 2200 T.M.C."
The State of Mysore has also adopted this estimate as
the correct estimate of the flow of the river Krishna at
Vijayawada. Reference in this connection may be made to
pages 57—59, paragraph 3 in MYK-Vol. III.
The case of the State of Andhra Pradesh is set out
in the rejoinder of the State of Andhra Pradesh to the
statement of the case of the State of Maharashtra (APK-
250
III) pages 42 to 62, paragraphs 4.2.1 to 4.7.4. Paragraphs
4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.5.21, 4.6.1, 4,6,2 and 4.6.3 reproduced
below give the gist of the case of the State of Andhra
Pradesh :
4.2.3. Gauge readings were being observed
meticulously thrice a day, i.e., at 6.00 AM, 12.00
Noon and 6.00 PM on the upstream and
downstream of the anicut both on Vijayawada side
and Seethanagaram side of the river. The position
of the shutters and number of shutters lowered
were also recorded every time the gauges were
read. Laborious calculations were being made to
get the averages of Vijayawada and
Seethanagaram gauges at all times and to get from
those the weighted average gauge readings for the
day and night and the weighted average lengths
of shutters down.
4.2.4. Daily discharges were being calculated from
the above using the free overfall and submerged weir-
flow formulae then in vogue. The coefficients in the
formulae were fixed taking into consideration the
How condition, upstream bed condition, the
velocity of approach etc. by responsible
engineers. Change in the section of anicut along
its length at its ends, such as sloping lengths etc.,
were also taken into consideration in fixing the
values of coefficients and arriving at the correct
discharges. Systematic tables were prepared for
calculating the dis-' charges for every 0.01 foot of
the weighted gauge readings for mechanical
application, to save time, and to avoid the possibility
of personal errors in calculations. The formulae
adopted were clearly described in Krishna Reservoir
Project Report Vol. II, printed in the year 1911.
Attempts were also made once in 1913 and again
in 1936 to give necessary corrections to the
coefficients in the formulae, to take into account
the change, in the upstream bed conditions and
the velocity of approach in the river. From the
above it can be seen that discharges observed at
Vijayawada were done very carefully, accurately and
scientifically.
4.5.21. Discharges of rivers are being measured all 251
over the world and in India, by continuous
current meter gaugings. Therefore the only
method of estimating the dependable flow of a
river of this magnitude is by continuous current
meter gaugings for a sufficiently long period, and
it was precisely that, that was recommended by
the Krishna Godavari Commission. Unless and
until it is done, it is not prudent to discard the
valuable data observed over a very long period
and preserved for the posterity.
 79

4.6.1. The Maharashtra stated that, if the flow data is on record. The contention of the State of Andhra
were reconstructed for the years from 1951-52 to Pradesh is that the use of the constant value of 3.1 as
1959-60, the 75 per cent dependable flow will coefficient in the formula is not correct. The State of
be increased to 2,183 Thousand Million Cubic Andhra Pradesh has submitted at page 2 of this Chart 253
Feet, or approximately 2,200 Thousand Million the varying values -for C in the formula Q=CL
Cubic Feet, which is the best estimate of the [(H+h a) 3 / 2—h a3/ 2 ] wh i ch ac cordi ng t o it may
available total flows at Vijayawada in their view. be adopted in modifying the formula.
It is stat ed that :—
4 6.2. In this context it is to be stated that the Krishna
Anicut breached in 1951 and the construction of "Considering all the above, the State of Andhra
the barrage was undertaken soon and therefore the Pradesh submits that the following varying
observations of the discharges at the anicut site values may reasonably be adopted for C for
were vitiated for this period. In spite of that, the different heads in the formulae for discharge
readings at Vijayawada anicut were being recorded over weirs for any reconstruction of dis-
regularly as before the breaching of the Anicut, charges to be made using the available
and the discharges were also calculated in the gauge data".
field as per the old method without taking into
The varying values of C mentioned by the State of
account the disturbed flow conditions. These
Andhra Pradesh are given below :—
calculations are only very rough and cannot be
relied upon.
Value of C Pre- Value of C Post-
4.6.3. It is also to be mentioned that we have to 1925 in the 1925 in the formula
Range of Head
establish first the correctness of the dependable formula Q=CL[H+h)3/2-
flow upto 1951 only, because it has been Q=CL[(H+ha)3/ ha3/2]
questioned and the subsequent data will not be 0'-3' . . . 2.65 2.60
of any use for this." 3'-6' . . . 2.80 2.75
6'-9' . . . 2.90 2.85
The State of Andhra Pradesh has also challenged the
model experiments performed in 1967 at Poona on 9'-ll' . . . 3.08 3.03
several grounds, as set out in paragraph 4.5 of APK-III, ll'-14' . . . 3.17 3.12
pages 54 to 61. above 14' . . . 3.20 3.15

252 As the case progressed the State of Maharashtra set
up an alternative case, the details of which are given in
Chart No. C-66 which is on record.
The alternative case of the State of Maharashtra is
that in the event of the Tribunal holding on the facts and
circumstances of the case that the results of the model
experiments performed at Poona in 1967-68 duly
corrected for the changes in the weir cannot be made to
give a reasonably accurate estimate of the dependable flow
of the Vijayawada Weir the M.D.S.S. formula should be
suitably modified as the submerged flow formula was
wrongly applied to the heads of water over the weir from
6' to 22' (or above), except for the days on which the
submerged flow actually occurred. It was further submitted
that for calculating the discharge over the standing shutters
the coefficient of discharge must be taken to be 3.33 and
not 3.1. The State of Mysore also adopted the alternative
case of the State of Maharashtra.
The rejoinder of the State of Andhra Pradesh to this
alternative case is set out in Chart No. C-47 which
I M of & P/73—12
It is to be noted that the State of Andhra Pradesh has
made a distinction between pre-1925 and post-1925
period, as its case is that the cross-section of the Anicut
in the post-1925 condition had got more kinks and also 254
had an upstream vertical retaining wall.
On the 5th October, 1972, during the course of
arguments, the Advocate General of Maharashtra and
the counsel for the State of Mysore submitted a signed
statement which runs as follows :—
"1967, 3 D Model Experiments of C. W. & P.
R. S. Poona.
The principal objections urged by Andhra Pradesh to
using the results of 3 D model Experiments to re-construct
the recorded gauge data are :
I. (a) The 3 D model was not geometrically similar to
the prototype.
(b) Consequently kinematic and dynamic similarity
is not secured.
(c) The model is not proved

(i) Because it is not geometrically similar and

 80
(ii) Because there was no prototype data
available for the year 1932 at the time of 1967
experiments for the Sitanagaram u/s gauge
and therefore the reading of the
Sitanagaram u/s gauge in the model was
based on a statistical study for the years
1933 to 1950. The actual gauge data of the
year 1932 which became subsequently
available after 21st March, 1969 show that
there is a wide disparity between the statistically
determined gauge readings and the actual
gauge readings of the Sitanagaram u/s gauge
on the prototype. Consequently the model is
not proved.
255 (d) The u/s approach should have been repro
duced upto 2 miles. In any event, the repro
duction of 1 mile u/s approach was not ad
equate as it did not correctly simulate the
flow pattern in the model.
(e) The method of independent variables cannot
be applied so as to correct the geometrical
dissimilarity between the model and the pro
totype; at any rate the method cannot be
applied to all the features in the geometry
of the Vijayawada Weir.
II. The States of Maharashtra and Mysore have carefully
considered these objections and the evidence on record.
Having regard to the undisputed fact that before the results
of 3 D model experiments can be acted upon, the model must
be proved, the States of Maharashtra and Mysore are not
able to maintain that the model can be said to have been
proved in view of the very great disparity between the
readings of the u/s Sitanagaram gauge on the prototype as
disclosed by the recorded data made available after the 21st
March, 1969 and the readings of the u/s Sitanagaram gauge
on the model having been based on a statistical study of
data for the years 1933-50. Under the circumstances the
States of Maharashtra and Mysore do not rely on the 3 D
model experiments for reconstructing the Vijayawada
recorded discharge data."
There may be other reasons also for not relying on
the 3 D model experiments. But whatever the reasons may
be, in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate
General of Maharashtra and the learned counsel of Mysore,
the case of the States of Maharashtra and Mysore that on
the basis of the results obtained from the aforesaid
experiments the flow at Vijayawada should be estimated
256
at 2176 T.M.C. does not stand and need not be considered.
The only case that we have now to examine is the
alternative case set up by the State of Maharashtra. On a
careful examination of the alternative case and the
rejoinder of the State of Andhra Pradesh it is clear that so far
as the matter of calculating the discharge over the standing
shutters is concerned, all the part i es ar e a gre ed t h at
t he co effi ci ent o f di s -charge C may be taken as 3.33
in the formula — Q = CL [(H+ha)3/2—ha3/2]. We may also
mention that initially there was some controversy
about the value of the velocity of approach, but at the final
stage of the arguments the parties agreed that in calculating
the discharges after 1925, the velocity of approach may be
taken to be as mentioned in Annex-ure II to the Krishna
Godavari Commission Report page xvi. Parties are also
agreed that for non-modular flow, the discharge may be
calculated according to the formula mentioned at page xvi,
paragraph 8 (iii) B of Annexure II to the Krishna Godavari
Commission Report. Parties are also broadly in agreement
regarding the utilisations made by each State every year
from 1901-02 to 1968-69.
For the period 1929 to 1951, complete gauge data for 257
calculating the discharge over Vijayawada Anicut are
available on the record of the Tribunal. If the modular
limit and the value of the coefficient of discharge are
determined, the annual discharge of the river Krishna over
the Krishna Anicut for the period 1929-30 to 1950-51 can be
calculated from that data. But this will furnish annual
discharge data only for 22 years. The engineers of the States
of Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh were requested
to calculate the annual discharge for the period 1929-30 to
1950-51 (a) taking the flow to be non-modular on days
when the afflux was less than 1' as given in C.W.P.C.
(K)-5 at pages 170 to 173 (b) applying
to the formula for modular flow Q = CL[(H+ha)3/2
_ ha3/2] the following values of C :—
0'-3' . . . . . . 2.60
3'-6' . . . . . . 2.75
6'-9' . . . . . . 3.00
9'-11' . . . . . . 3.10
Above 11' . . . . . . 3.20
(c) adopting the formula for non-modular flow as
mentioned in the Krishna Godavari Commission Report,
Annexure II and (d) taking the agreed value of the velocity
approach and agreed value of the coefficient for flow over 258
the standing shutters. They submitted a document containing
these calculations from which the 75 per cent dependable
yield works out to 2065 T.M.C.
 81
Realising that it will be better if from the material on
record, the annual discharge for a longer period may be
determined, the parties made certain submissions which are
incorporated in the notes submitted by them.
The States of Maharashtra and Mysore submitted that
for the four years 1925-26 to 1928-29, as the record of
individual readings of both upstream gauges are not
available, the available record containing averages of the two
upstream gauges may be utilised not only for computing the
discharge over the central portion, but also discharge over
the flanks taking the average of the two gauges as
representing the individual readings of the two upstream
gauges. This method of computing discharge will give results
with sufficient accuracy for all practical purposes. This
contention is contained in paragraph 3 of MR Note No. 1
filed on the 26th March, 1973.
The States of Maharashtra and Mysore further submitted
that the recorded data over the Krishna Anicut from the
years 1951-52 to 1960-61 and the discharge data gauged
259 by the State of Andhra Pradesh on the Krishna
(Prakasam) Barrage (which came into operation in 1961)
for the years 1961-62 to 1970-71 may be taken into
account without making any modifications. The case of
the States of Maharashtra and Mysore on this point is
summed up in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of MR Note No. 10
filed on the 5th April, 1973. The State of Andhra
Pradesh has, however, raised objection to the inclusion of
the recorded data for these years. It has, however,
submitted that discharge data for the years 1901-02 to
1924-25 may be calculated by applying the modified
formula taking the gauge readings given in the printed
register Ex. APK-616 for the period 1901-02 to 1924-25
which according to it represented the average of the
readings of the two upstream gauges. Alternatively the
State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that annual discharge
data so arrived may be increased by 2.29 per cent. Ulti-
mately it submitted in AP Note No. 10 filed on the 3rd
May, 1973 that in view of the factors mentioned in that
note, Andhra Pradesh had no objection for making an
overall positive correction of +5 per cent for the annual
flows over the Anicut for the period 1901-02 to 1924-
25 as given in Column 3 of An-nexure II of AP Note
No. 2, dated the 30th March, 1973.
It was also for our consideration whether the discharge
data mentioned in the Krishna Reservoir Project Volume II
260 for the years 1894-95 to 1900-1901 should be taken into
consideration or not.
(l) These documents are reproduced as Appendices O, P and Q, respectively.
With the able assistance of the parties and after thorough
examination of all the material on record and after a careful
consideration of the matter, the Tribunal directed that the
series of discharge data from 1894-95 to 1971-72 be
prepared on the lines indicated by the Tribunal which
represented the views of the Tribunal on all matters in
controversy between the parties. The States of
Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh submitted on
the 4th May, 1973 separate documents marked X (Ex.
MRK-342), Y (Ex. MYK-303) and Z(Ex. APK-696) (1)
containing the annual flow series at Vijayawada for the
years 1894-95 to 1971-72. The 75 per cent dependable
flow from each of these series works out to 2,060 T.M.C.
After scrutinising the documents the parties submitted an
agreed statement stating that the 75 per cent dependable flow
of the Krishna river at Vijayawada for the purpose of the
case may be adopted as 2060 T.M.C. This statement
which is Ex. MRK-343 is set out at the end of this
Chapter. It is a matter of great satisfaction that the dispute 261
on a very crucial matter in the case which had been the
subject matter of serious controversy between the parties
and which was mainly responsible for the prolongation of
the trial in this case has been thus satisfactorily resolved.
We place on record our appreciation of this attitude adopted
by the parties.
Conclusion.—The Tribunal hereby determines that for
the purpose of this case the 75 per cent dependable flow of
the river Krishna upto Vijayawada is 2060 T.M.C.
Sub-issue No. 1 of Issue II is partly decided as
aforesaid. The other aspects of this issue are discus
sed separately.
Exhibit MRK—343 262
In view of the documents marked X, Y and Z con-
taining the 78 years' flow series, filed by the three
States, the parties are agreed that the 75 per cent de-
pendable flow be adopted as 2060 T.M.Cft. for the
purpose of this case.
Sd/-
P. Ramachandra Reddi, for Andhra Pradesh.
4-5-73
Sd/-
T. Krishna Rao, for the state of Mysore.
4-5-73
Sd/-
H. M. Seervai for the State of Maharashtra.
4-5-73
 CHAPTER X
263
Return flow

Return flow.—Return flow or regeneration from
river water diverted for beneficial uses is that portion of
diverted water which eventually finds its way to the river
from which it is diverted. Return flow is a relevant factor
to be considered in making an equitable apportionment
of river water. Most of the return flow in the Krishna
river comes from water diverted for irrigation.
Return flow from irrigation.—Return flow from
irrigation includes drainage from excess percolation
during irrigation, surface run off during irrigation as
well as drainage from canal seepage, leakage at canal
structures, wasteway discharges during conveyance and
discharges at the lower ends of canals.(1 )
should be taken into account in determining the de-
pendable flow of the river Krishna.
It is Mysore's case(3) that it is difficult to determine the
exact extent and time of appearance of return flow.
In view of the uncertain character of return flow, it is
desirable to evolve a method by which its effect may be
automatically accounted for and each State may get its
due share of the return flow.
It is Andhra Pradesh's case(4) that regeneration is an
uncertain factor and should not be taken into
consideration in allocating the river flow.

When water is applied to a field, a part of the water is

rapidly absorbed by the soil. After the sub-soil is
saturated and wetted to field capacity, additional
water seeps underground by the force of gravity. If
sufficient percolation occurs, the water table rises and
water in increasing quantities flows back to the stream as
invisible return flow.
Contentions regarding return flow from irrigation
water.—It is the common case of the parties that a part
264 of the water withdrawn from the stream for irrigation is
consumptively used and a part returns to the stream.
It is Maharashtra's case( 2) that return flow from
new irrigation projects in the Krishna basin will be of
the order of 30 to 40% of the diversions and will appear
within a short time and that this return flow
Return flow varies from region to region and from
time to time.—The magnitude of return flow from
irrigation depends upon a number of variable factors
such as method and efficiency of irrigation and con-
veyance, soil type, underlying geological formations,
topography, climate, temperature, evaporation and use of
groundwater and varies widely from region to region
and from time to ti me.
265
Studies of return flow in U.S.A.—In U.S.A., sys-
tematic measurements of return flow in several river
valleys have been made since 1885.( 5) Studies of
return flow in U.S.A. show that 16 to 70% of the
water diverted for irrigation returned to the stream
after use for irrigation. (6) The latest estimate made in
1968 shows that about 40% of the water withdrawn
for irrigation returns to the stream. ( 7)

(1) Ivan E. Houk, Irrigation Engineering (1951) Vol. I, p. 411.

(2) MRK I pp. 21-25; MRK II pp. 40-41, 50-59.
(3) MYK IV p. 7
(4) APK III pp. 62-69.
(5) Ivan E. Houk, Irrigation Engineering (1951) Vol. I, p. 412.
(6) E. Kuiper, Water, Resources, Development, Planning Engineering and Economics (1965),
pp. 14, 349.
Robert W. Abbett, American Civil Engineering Practice (1956) Vol. II, p. 17.
Ivan E. Houk, Irrigation Engineering (1951) Vol. I, p. 415.
R.K. Linsley, M.A. Kohler, J.L. H. Paulhus, Applied Hydrology (1949), p. 217.
(7) L.J. Erie—Management, A Key to Irrigation Efficiency, Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division,
Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers Vol. 94 No. I.R. 3 September, 196S, p. 285. In Canada also irrigation consumes
only 60%
of delivered water, J.G. Nelson and MJ. Chambers, Water—Process and Method in Canadian Geography, p. 15

82
 83

Quality of return water—Increased concentration of
dissolved minerals and salts in the return flow from irrigation,
particularly in arid and semi-arid regions may cause
salinity problems downstream Extreme water quality
266
deterioration below tolerance level is injurious to crop
growth (8) However, the salinity has little effect, when the
saline water is diluted by relatively large river flows (9) or
by mixture with fresh water in large reservoirs
Return flow in USA inter-State Water controversies—
In the earlier cases(10) due to lack of definite data on the
subject, the USA Supreme Court was unable to determine
how much of the water used for irrigation returned to the
stream However in one of these cases,(11) the Court was
satisfied on the evidence that as respects irrigation is a part
267 of the river valley the return water would more than
counterbalance the loss through evaporation and
otherwise when the period of storage was not more than
from one year to the next
In 1ater decisions, the Court recorded definite findings
with regard to the rate of return flow In the litigation
concerning North Platte river,(12) the Court found that in
Jackson County, Colorado, the diversions were about 4-1/2
acre feet per acre, but the average consumptive use rate
was 74 acre foot only. The consumptive use represented
the difference between the water diverted and water which
returned to the stream after use for irrigation The Court
determined the consumptive use rate in other sections of
the river valley also In the section Pathfinder to Whalen,
the consumptive use rate was 1.1 acre feet per acre, while
the diversion rate was 2.5 acre feet per acre and, out of
the total seasonal headgate diversion of 35,000 acre feet,
18,200 acre feet was return-ed to the river
The decree in a case decided in 1963(13) contained a
comprehensive scheme for allocation of water in terms of
acre feet of annual consumptive use which was defined as
diversions from the stream less such return flow thereto as
was available for consumptive use in the United States or in
268
satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty obligation
USA researches on time of appearance of return
flow—Observations in U S A indicate that return flow
from a new irrigation project may begin within a few
years after initiation of the project, but may not reach its
full magnitude until after 10, 20 or even 30 years following
the beginning of irrigation (14)
India - -The Indian Irrigation Commission observed
(15) that the percentage of irrigation water returning to the
river was probably very much less in India than was
indicated by observations made in America
Indus Valley—The Indus Commission(16) held that
regeneration was an uncertain factor and could not be
depended upon to reduce the shortages in river supplies
269
required for certain projects The Indus Treaty took into
account the average historic gains between Ferozepur and
Islam on the Sutlej ( 17) Henry Olivier(l8) has observed
"In territories such as India and Pakistan where
perennial irrigation is practised on a vast scale,
combined losses of the order of 40% from deep
percolation and regeneration see-page constitute
major factors not merely as regards the relatively
short-term economics of water/land use, but in
the progressive qualitative change of water and
soils Pre-liminary estimates put the annual
recharge

(8) Yen Te Chow, Handbook of Applied Hydrology (1964) pp 19-25, 19-31, O W Israelson and V E Hansen, Irrigation
Principle
and Practices, 3rd Ed , pp 223 229, International Association for Water Law, Annales Juris Aquarum (1968), p 16,
A H Gar
retson and others The Law of International Drainage Basins (1967) pp 579-581, The Nations Water Resources,
U S Water
Resources Council (1968), p 3-3-5
(9) Lloyd v Wilcox, Effect of irrigation on stream water quality (U S Department of Agriculture), pp 169-173
(10)Kansas v Colorado 206 U S 45 107 (1937) (Arkaasas litigation), Wyoming v, Colorado 259 US 419, 483,
(1922), 298
U S 573, 581 582 (1932) (Laramie river litigation)

(11) Wyoming v Colorado 259 U S 419, 481

(12) Nebraska v Wyoming 325 U S 589, 600, 603 (1945)
(13) Arizona v California 373 U S 546 (1963) 376 US 340 (1964) (Colorado river litigation)
(I4) Edward Kurpet Water Resources Development (1955) p 349, Ivan E Houk Irrigation Engineering (1951) Vol
I, pp 412-416 C V Davis Handbook of Applied Hydraulics 2nd Ed (1952) p 785, Transactions of American
Society of Civil Engineering Vol 94 (1930) p 138 Paper No 1730
(15) Report of the Indian Irrigation Commission (1901-1903), Vol I, p 13
(16) Report of the Indus (Rau) Commission, Vol I, pp 54-55, 82-91,
(17) See para 23 and 34 of Annexure 'H to the Indus Waters Treaty N D Gulhati, Development of Inter-State Rivers
(1972), p 90
(18) Henry Oliver Irrigation and Water Resources Engineering (1972) p
14,
See also N D Gulhati Indus Waters Treaty (1973), pp 29 237
 84

of groundwater in the northern zone of West
Pakistan at approximately 25 x 109 m3 to 47
X 10 9 m 3 (20-38 million acre-feet) and in
the southern zone it is estimated to be about
half this amount."
Special considerations affecting return flow in the
Krishna basin.—(1) The Krishna valley lies in a
latitude of 13°7' to 19°20' N and has a tropical climate.
The mean annual temperature is 24°C (75°F) to 29.4°C
(85°F), the average annual potential evaporation 71 to
150 inches and the weighted average rainfall 30.9" (784
mm) in a catchment of 99,980 square miles.
(2) Most of the canals in the Kri shna basin are
270 unlined. There is heavy percolation loss from unlined
canals.
(3) A part of the water of the Krishna river sys
tem is diverted outside the Krishna basin for purposes
of irrigation and power production. There is no re
turn flow in the Krishna river from water diverted
outside the Krishna basin.
(4) All the parties have stated that they will be
free to use the underground water within their respec
tive territories. Extensive withdrawal of groundwater
from wells may lower the water table and reduce the
return flow.
Assessment of return flow from irrigation in the
Krishna valley :
(1) Nira Valley.—Studies of return flow in the
Nira Valley (10) in rabi and hot wether seasons during
1941-42, 1943, 1944-45, 1945-46 showed that 18.1 to
51.4% of the water diverted for irrigation returned to the
stream in water-logged areas and under conditions of
lavish and excessive application of water. Another study
during hot weather season of 1953-54 revealed-that the
return flow was of the order of 3 to 4% only. The
year 1953 was preceded by a year of extreme scarcity
of rainfall.
About 5,400 acres of sugarcane and 15,500 acres of
seasonal crops are being irrigated on the banks of the
Nira river below Vir Dam and up to confluence of the
Nira with the Bhima by lifting water from the available 271
river flow and regeneration flows in the Nira river. No
water is let down from Vir storage during the non-
monsoon season.(20)
(2) Project reports.—Several project reports give
estimates of return flow in the Krishna basin varying
from 4 to 10% of the water diverted for irri
gation(21)
(3) Krishna Godavari Commission Report.—The
Krishna Godavari Commission observed that although
little statistical data were available, it could be stated
from general considerations that the contribution to
groundwater from irrigation channels and irrigated
fields might be as large as and sometimes even much
more than the quantity actually utilised by crops. Con
siderable theory and many precedents could be cited
in support of the fact of such regeneration. However 272
the quantum of regeneration varied widely from one
set of conditions on one river to a di fferent set of
conditions on another. No practical benefit could be
derived from regeneration in the optimum development
of the waters of any rivers system unless data of daily
flows at number of sites along the river were available
and were analysed to determine the actual quantum
of regeneration. The Commission concluded that un
til regular gaugings were established at key sites on
the river system and results of each gaugings were
available for a number of years (in no case less than
ten), they could not give any quantitative assessment
of regeneration.(22)
(4) No assessment of return flow in the Krishna
basin on a regional basis by following normal
method.—A common method of assessing return flow
on a regional basis is to ascertain the daily flows at
key points on the river system for a number of years
and to analyse the data in the light of the areas irri
gated, depths of irrigation, rainfall, sub-soil water
levels and other geological, hydrological and meteoro
logical data.(23)

(19) Reports on Irrigation and Allied Research, PWD, Bombay, 1941-42, 1943, 1946, 1953-54. (Framji's evidence pp.
356-437).
(20) MRPK XXXI, p. 6.
(21) Report of Rajolibaida Diversion Scheme (erstwhile Hyderabad State) APPK Vol. 46, pp. 1-2.
Mysore Note on Upper Tunga Project MVTK Vol. VIII p. 97, Mysore Note on Tungabhadra Reservoir Foreshore
Lift Irrigation MYPK Vol. VIII p. 115. Kistna Pennar Project Report, (1951 Scheme) Madras State Vol. I.
Page 10; APPK-Vol. II p. X; Report of the Lower Krishna Project Nandikonda site of the erstwhile Hyderabad
State p. 16, APPK-Vol. X, p. 16; Report of the Bhima Irrigation Project, Govt. of Maharashtra Vol. I p. 18. Vol.
IV p. 9; MRPK-Vol. 21 p. 18; MRPK-Vol. 23 p. 9
(22) Report of the Krishna Godavari Commission, pp. 129, 138*139, 158.
(23) See Annual Report (Technical) of the Central Board of Irrigation and Power, India 1945, p. 134; Report of the Krishna
Godavari
Commission, pp. 129,138-139; see also Groundwater Studies Edited by R.H. Brown and others UNESCO 1972 p. 5.4;
D.V. Jog-
Ickir Irrigation Research in India, pp. 142-145, Publication No. 78, Central Board of Irrigation and Power.
 85
So far, the return flow in the Krishna basin has not been
assessed on a regional basis by adopting this method.
273 (5) Oral evidence.—Mr. Framji, an expert witness, has
made an estimate of return flow from new irrigation
projects in the Krishna basin.
Mr. Framji's evidence.—On the subject of return flow,
the State of Maharashtra called Kavasji K. Framji as an
expert witness. In connection with the Sind Punjab dispute
before the Indus Commission and the preparation of the
Lower Sind Barrage Project, Mr. Framji made an intensive
study of the projected return flows between Sukkur and
Kotri, the off-take of canals for the Lower Sind Project and
the return flows which could be used in the Lower Sind Barrage
Canals. Recently, in connection with the Indo-Pakistan
negotiations over the waters of the Ganga and the eastern
rivers, studies of return flows between Farakka and Hardinge
Bridge were made under his direction and supervision. He
has also made an intensive study of the literature
concerning return flows in U.S.A. and India. In his
opinion (24) through return flow may take 10 to 30 years
after the beginning of irrigation to reach its full magnitude,
on making a safe and conservative estimate, 10% of the
annual diversions by new irrigation projects is likely to
appear as return flow within 5 years of the coming into
274 operation of the new projects. The return flow will appear
somewhere downstream and will be trapped in one of the
large storage reservoirs in the Krishna basin. An equitable
apportionment of river water should take into account a
reasonable minimum allowance for regeneration from new
projects. His opinion is based on (1) his own knowledge and
experience, (2) published reports on return flow in U.S.A.,
(3) observations regarding return flow in the Indus basin,
(4) reports on measurements of return flow in the Nira
Valley, (5) data given in the Krishna Godavari Commission
Report and (6) estimates of return flow in project reports.
Counsel for the State of Mysore did not cross-examine the
witness. Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh cross-
examined Mr. Framji, but no expert witness was called to
rebut his evidence.
According to Mr. Framji, assuming an annual dependable
flow of 2,200 T.M.C. up to 1951 and an annual diversion
of 1,215 T.M.C. for projects coming into operation after
1951 and contributing return flows, 120 T.M.C. of return
water will be added to the dependable supply of the
Krishna river.
(24) Framji's evidence pp. 1-5, 317-475, 1127-1135, 1141, 1148-1185, 1200-1204, 1234-1235, 1294-1302, 1305-1313,
1649-1650 (25) EX. MRK-343, 342, MYK—303, APR—696.
Measurement of use of water for irrigation and effect of
return flow.—It is common case before us that the use of
water for irrigation should be measured by the quantity of
water diverted from the river without deducting the water
that may return after such use to the river, because on such 275
diversion there is immediate depletion of the river supply
to the extent of the water diverted. Accordingly, we
propose to direct in our final order that save as provided
therein, a use shall be measured by the extent of depletion
of the waters of the river Krishna without deducting in the
case of use for irrigation the quantity of water that may
return after such use to the river.
As and when return water from irrigation use appears in
the river, the river supply is augmented and the additional
water becomes available for subsequent use. Our task is to
ascertain, if possible, the quantity of water that will be
added to the 75 per cent dependable flow of the river
Krishna up to Vijaywada on account of return flows in the
near future and to make an equitable apportionment of the
additional river supply between the three States.
Estimate of Return Flow and equitable apportionment.—
We have determined that the 75% dependable flow of the
river Krishna up to Vijayawada is 2,060 T.M.C. This
dependable flow was ascertained after taking into account
78 years' flow series from 1894-95 to 1971-72. In this flow
series, the upstream utilisations for the years 1969-70 to
1971-72 have been assumed to be the same as in 1968-69,
disregarding the extra utilisations, if any, after 1968-69 as 276
further details were not on the record. (25)
After 1968-69, there is and will be gradually increasing
utilisations by the States of Maharashtra, Mysore and
Andhra Pradesh for irrigation within the Krishna basin. The
excess utilisations after 1968-69 will yield substantial
return flow. No part of this return flow is reflected in the
dependable flow of 2,060 T.M.C.
There were elaborate discussions with Counsel and
technical representatives of the parties concerning return
flow and the method of its ascertainment and allocation.
The summary of the discussions is em-- bodied in the
minutes of the proceedings of the Tribunal on the 12th
October, 1973 and is set forth below :—
(1) The parties agree that a percentage of the excess
utilisations for irrigation in the Krishna basin
 86
from projects using 3 T.M.C. or more will appear as
return flow and will augment the 75 per cent de-
pendable flow of 2,060 T.M.C. up to Vijayawada.
According to Maharashtra, the percentage should not
be less than 10 per cent ; according to Mysore, the
277 percentage should not be less than 20 per cent; and
according to Andhra Pradesh, it should be 4 per cent.
(2) According to Andhra Pradesh, the excess uti
lisation should be taken to be the excess of the utili
sation after 1968-69 over the utilisation in 1968-69.
According to Maharashtra, the excess utilisation
should be taken to be the excess of the utilisation after
1968-69 over the utilisation in 1964-65.
According to Mysore, the excess utilisation should be
taken to be the excess of the utilisation after 1968-69
over the average of all the utilisations from 1894-95 to
1968-69.
(3) All parties agree that in 1964-65 the utilisa
tion for irrigation in the Krishna drainage basin from
projects using 3 T.M.C. or more was as follows :—
In Maharashtra 47. 77
.In Mysore
. . . . T.M.C.
80. 70
.In Andhra
. . Pradesh
. . . T.M.C.
35. 36
(4) All parties agree that in 1968-69 the utilisation
for irrigation in the Krishna drainage basin from projects
278 using 3 T.M.C. or more was as follows :—
In Maharashtra 61. 45 T.M.C.
In Mysore 176. 05 T.M.C.
.In Andhra
. . Pradesh
170. 00 T.M.C.
(5) The Tribunal will decide what percentage of
the excess utilisation will appear as return flow.
(6) The Tribunal will decide how the augmenta
tion of the 75 per cent dependable flow on account
of the return flow will be shared by the parties.
(7) The Tribunal will decide when the distribu
tion of the additional 75 per cent dependable flow
will take place between the parties and whether it
should take place once or more than once during the
next period of 25 years.
(8) The parties agree that they will prepare, keep
and maintain complete detailed and accurate records
of annual uses for irrigation in the Krishna basin from
their respective projects using 3 T.M.C. or more.
(9) The parties agree that the excess utilisation
for irrigation in the Krishna basin from their respective
projects using 3 T.M.C. or more shall be determined on
the basis of the records to be so prepared and
maintained by them.
The parties agree that the year 1968-69 referred to
in paragraph(4) above is the water year commencing on
from 1st June 1968 and ending on 31st May 1969.
We may add that the parties also made the following 279
submissions :—
(1) According to Maharashtra, the entire return
flow in the Krishna basin should be shared equally
by Maharashtra and Mysore.
According to Mysore, each State should get the
entire return flow coming from the utilisation for irri-
gation from its own projects.
According to Andhra Pradesh, the entire return
flow in the Krishna basin should be shared equally by all
the three States.
(2) Maharashtra and Mysore say that the distri
bution should take place firstl y as from the 1st of
June, 1974 and then on the expiry of each succeeding
period of five years.
According to Andhra Pradesh, the distribution
should take place only once, that is to say, on the 1st
of June, 1979.
For the limited purposes of ascertaining return flows and
distributing the additional 75% dependable flow on
account of return flows until our order is reviewed by a
competent authority or Tribunal, we decide as follows
:—
On a consideration of all relevant materials including
the evidence of Mr. Framji and the special features
affecting return flow in the Krishna basin and making a 280
safe and conservative estimate, we hold that 7 ½% of
the excess of the utilisations for irrigation in the Krishna
basin after 1968-69 from projects using 3 T.M.C. or
more annually over the utilisations for such irrigation in
1968-69 from such projects will appear as return flow
in the Krishna basin and will augment the 75%
dependabl e flow of 2,060 T.M.C. of the river
Krishna up to Vijayawada.
We hold that in the water year 1968-69 the utilisations
for irrigation in the Krishna basin from projects using 3
T.M.C. or more were as follows :—
In Maharashtra . . 61.45 T.M.C.
In Mysore (now know as Karna-
taka) . . . 176.05 T.M.C.
In Andhra Pradesh . . 170.00 T.M.C.
 87
In our opinion, the additional 75 per cent dependable
flow on account of the return flow from the excess
utilisations should be distributed between the parties, firstly
as from the water year 1983-84, again as form the water
year 1990-91 and again as from the water year 1998-99.
We hold that the additional 75% dependable flow on
account of return flows available for distribution as from
the water year 1983-84 should be computed on the basis of
the excess of the average of the annual utilisations during the
water years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 over the
utilisations in the water year 1968-69.
281 We hold that the additional 75 per cent dependable
flow on account of return flows available for distribution as
from the water year 1990-91 should be computed on the
basis of the excess of the average of the annual utilisations
during the water years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 over
the utilisations in the water year 1968-69.
We hold that the additional 75 per cent dependable
flow on account of return flows available for distribution as
from the water year 1998-99 should be computed on the
basis of the excess of the average of the annual
utilisations during the water years 1990-91, 1991-92 and
1992-93 over the utilisations in the water year 1968-69.
In our opinion, it is just and equitable that, in the present
scheme of allocation, each State should get the benefit of
the additional 75 per cent dependable flow on account of
the return flow from the excess utilisations for irrigation
from its own projects using 3 T.M.C. or more annually.
We propose to direct that the three States shall prepare,
and maintain complete, detailed and accurate records of
annual uses for irrigation in the Krishna basin from
projects using 3 T.M.C. or more annually.
We hold that all future utilisations for irrigation in the
Krishna basin in each water year from the projects of any
282 State using 3 T.M.C. or more annually shall be computed
on the basis of the records to be so prepared and
maintained by that State.
Our views regarding the 75 per cent dependable flow of
the river Krishna up to the Vijayawada and the
augmentation of the dependable flow by return flows and
their equitable allocation between the three States are
reflected in clauses III and V of our final order which are
as follows :—
1 M of I & p/73—13
Clause III,
The Tribunal hereby determines that, for the purpose of
this case, the 75 per cent dependable flow of th e ri ver
Krishn a up to Vijayawada i s 2,060 T.M.C.
The Tribunal considers that the entire 2,060
T.M.C. is available for distribution between the States of
Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
The Tribunal further considers that additional
quantities of water as mentioned in sub-clauses A(ii),
A(i ii), A(iv), B(ii), B(iii), B(iv), C(ii), C(iii) and
C(iv) of Clause V will be added to the 75 per cent
dependable flow of the river Krishna up to Vijayawada on 283
account of return flows and will be available for distribution
between the States of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra
Pradesh.
Clause V.
(A). The State of Maharashtra shall not use in any
water year more than the quantity of water of the river
Krishna specified hereunder :—
(i) as from the water year commencing on the 1st
June next after the date of the publication of the
decision of the Tribunal in the official Gazette
up to the water year 1982-83
565 T.M.C.
(ii) as from the water year 1983-84 up to the water
year 1989-90
565 P.M.C. plus
a quantity of water equivalent to 7 1/ 2 per
cent o f t he exc ess of t he avera ge o f the
annual utilisations for irrigation in the Krishna
river basin during the water years 1975-76,
1976-77 and 1977-78 from its own projects
using 3 T.M.C. or more annually over the
utilisation for such irrigation in the water year
1968-69 from such projects.
(iii) as from the water year 1990-91 up to the
water year 1997-98
565 T.M.C. plus
a quantity of water equivalent to 71/ 2 per
cent of the excess of the average of the 284
annual utilisations for irrigation in the
Krishna river basin during the water years 1982-
83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 from its own
projects using 3 T.M.C. or more annually over
the utilisations for such irrigation in the water
year 1968-69 from such projects.
 88
(iv) as from the water year 1998-99 onwards
565 T.M.C. plus
a qu antit y of wat er eq ui val ent t o
7 1/ 2 per cent of the excess of the average of the
annual utilisations for irrigation in the
Krishna river basin during the water years 1990-
91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 from its own
projects using 3 T.M.C. or more annually over
the utilisations for such irrigation in the water
year 1968-69 from such projects.
(B). The State of Karnataka shall not use in any water
year more than the quantity of water of the river
Krishna specified hereunder :—
(i) as from the water year commencing on the 1st
June next after the date of the publication of
the decision of the Tribunal in the official
Gazette up to the water year 1982-83.
695 T.M.C.
285 (ii) as from the water year 1983-84 up to the water
year 1989-90
695 T.M.C. plus
a qu antit y of wat er equi val ent of 7 1/ 2
per cent of the excess of the average of the annual
utilisations for irrigation in the Krishna
river basin during the water years 1975-76, 1976-
77 and 1977-78 from its own projects using 3
T.M.C. or more, annually over the utilisations for
such irrigation in the water year 1968-69 from
such projects.
(iii) as from the water year 1990-91 up to the water
year 1997-98
695 T.M.C. plus
a q u a n t i t y o f w a t e r e q u i va l e n t t o
7 1/ 2 p e r c e n t o f t h e e x c e s s o f t h e
average of the annual utilisations for
irri gation in the Krishna river basi n
during the water years 1982-83, 1983-84 and
1984-85 from its own projects using 3
T.M.C. or more annually over the utilisations for
such irrigation in the water year 1968-69 from
such projects.
(iv) as from the water year 1998-99 onwards
695 T.M.C. plus
a quantity of water equivalent to 7 1/ 2 per
cent of the excess of the average of the annual
286
utilisations for irrigation in the Krishna river
basin during the water years 1990-91, 1991-
92 and 1992-93 from its
own projects using 3 T.M.C. or more annually
over the utilisations for such irrigation in the
water year 1968-69 from such projects.
(C). The State of Andhra Pradesh will be at liberty
to use in any water year the remaining water that may be
flowing in the river Krishna but thereby it shall not
acquire any right whatsoever to use in any water year
nor be deemed to have been allocated in any water year
water of the river Krishna in excess of the quantity
specified hereunder :—
(i) as from the water year commencing on the 1st
June next after the date of the publication of the
decision of the Tribunal in the official Gazette
up t o the water year 1982-83
800 T.M.C.
(ii) as from the water year 1983-84 up to the
water year 1989-90
800 T.M.C. plus
a quantity of water equivalent of 7 1/ 2
per cent of the excess of the average of the annual
utilisations for irrigation in the Krishna river
basin during the water years 1975-76, 1976-77 287
and 1977-78 from its own projects using 3
T.M.C. or more annually over the utilisations
for such irrigation in the water year 1968-69
from such projects.
(iii) as from the water year 1990-91 up to the
water year 1997-98
800 T.M.C. plus
a q uanti t y of wat er equ i val ent of 7 1/ 2 per
cent of the excess of the average of the annual
utilisations for irrigation in the Krishna river
basin during the water years 1982-83, 1983-84
and 1984-85 from its-own projects using 3
T.M.C. or more annually over the utilisations
for such irrigation in the water year 1968-69
from such projects.
(iv) as from the water year 1998-99 onwards
800 T.M.C. plus
a qu antit y of wat er eq ui val ent of 71 / 2 per
cent of the excess of the average of the annual
utilisations for irrigation in the Krishna river
basin during the water years 1990-91, 1991-92
and 1992-93 from its own projects using 3
T.M.C. or more an-nually over the utilisations 288
for such irrigation in the water year 1968-69
from such projects.
 89

(D). For the limited purpose of this Clause, it is "The States of Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra
declared that— Pradesh agree as follows :—

(i) the utilisations for irrigation in the Krishna river The uses mentioned in column No. 1 below shall be
basin in the water year 1968-69 from projects measured in the manner indicated in column No. 2
using 3 T.M.C. or more annually were as :—
follows :—

From projects of the

State of Maharashtra 61.45 T.M.C. Use Measurement
From projects of
the State of Domestic and By 20 per cent of the quantity
Karnataka 176.05 T.M.C municipal water supply of water diverted or lifted from
From projects of the the river or any of its
State of the Andhra tributaries or from any
Pradesh 170.00 T.M.C.
reservoir, storage or canal.
(ii) annual utilisations for irrigation in the
Krishna river basin in each water year after this Industrial use By 2.5 per cent of the quantity
Order comes into operation from the projects of of water diverted or lifted from
any State using 3 T.M.C. or more annually the river or any of its tributaries
or from any reservoir, storage
shall be computed on the basis of the records or canal."
prepared and maintained by that State under
Clause XIII. On a consideration of all relevant materials, we are
satisfied that we should incorporate the following direction in
Clause XIII of our final order will provide that each our final order.
State shall prepare and maintain annually for each water
year complete detailed and accurate records of inter alia "The uses mentioned in column No. 1 below
"annual uses for irrigation within the Krishna river basin shall be measured in the manner indicated in
from projects using 3 T.M.C. or more annually." column No. 2 :—

289 Return flow from municipal water supply and industrial Use Measurement
uses.—Studies in U.S.A. and Canada indicate that in those
countries municipal water supply consumes 10 per cent of Domestic and By 20 per cent of the quantity of
the water diverted and industries consume about 2 per municipal water water diverted or lifted from the
cent. This consumption does not include evaporation losses supply river or any of its tributaries or
and loss through discharge into sewage farms or otherwise. from any reservoir, storage or
If the quality of return water is impaired, the reusability of canal.
the water depends on local facilities for purification. (26) Industrial use By 2.5 per cent of the quantity of 291
water diverted or lifted from the
So far, only a small fraction of the waters of the Krishna river or any of its t ributaries
river is consumed for domestic and municipal water or from any reservoir, storage
supply and industrial uses. or canal."

290 On the 17th August, 1973 the parties jointly made the The question of return flow from these uses will not
following statement :— arise, as they will be measured by the quantity of water
consumed by them, in terms of the above direction.

(26) I J Erie—Minagem^nt—A Key to Irrigation Efficiency, Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division,
Proceedings of the American-Society of Civil Engineers Vol. 94 I.R. 83 September 1968, p. 285; J.G. Nelson and
M.J. Chambers—Water—Process and Method in Canadian Geography p. 15; Van Te Cho-Handbook of Applied
Hydrology, pp. 19-24, 19-25.
 292
CHAPTER XI
Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and law relating to equitable apportionment of the benefits of an interstate
river

Jurisdiction of Tribunal.—All disputes concerning the
equitable apportionment of the waters of or in the
inter-State Krishna river and river valley have been
referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. The entire
area drained by the river and its tributaries is called the
river basin ( 1 ). The river basin is also called the
river drainage basin. All parties admit that this
Tribunal has jurisdiction over the entire surface and
underground water of and in the entire Krishna basin.
This admission was recorded in our order dated the
4th April, 1973.
Krishna river basin.—Andhra Pradesh argues that the
river basin includes all territories outside the river drainage
basin to which the waters of the river may be diverted
and beneficially applied. It relies on Article II(b) of
the Colorado River Compact, 1922 which provided
that as used in the compact, "the term 'Colorado
293 River Basin' means all of the drainage area of the
Colorado River System and all other territory within the
United States of America to which the waters of the
Colorado River System shall be beneficially applied". It
is to be observed that the purpose of this artificial
definition was to authorise certain trans-basin
diversions from the Colorado River System( 2). The
same definition of the Colorado River Basin was
repeated in Article II of the Upper Colorado River
Basin Compact, 1948. However, in other compacts the
term "river basin" was defined to mean the drainage
basin or the area drain- ed by the river and its
tributaries( 3 ).
The river basin is necessarily completely bounded by
the watershed or divide which separates it from other
adjacent basins( 4 ). The waters of the river basin can
be diverted and beneficially applied to areas in the
adjacent watersheds but those areas cannot be regarded
as parts of the river basin.
The expressions "Krishna basin", "Krishna river basin" 294
and "Krishna drainage basin" used in this Report
mean the entire area drained by the Krishna river and
its tributaries. The Krishna basin is bounded by the
watershed or divide which separates if from other
adjacent basins.
River basin an indivisible physical unit.—Each
river basin is an idivisible physical unit, a more or
less self-contained unit of drainage ( 5 ). Nature's
laws treat the river and its tributaries as the arteries of
a single circulatory system. The surface streams
converge, ever seeking a lower level and unite to
form one mainstream. All the waters that find their way
towards a common outlet form an interconnected and
interdependent system, capable of transmitting within
itself any disturbance caused by changes affecting water in
any part of the basin. Water is a moving resource
which implies that changes in quality or quantity of
water in one place may directly affect uses of water
somewhere else.
Thus there exists between the manifold uses to
which a river may be put a state of interdependence, a 295
very close solidarity(6 ). There is competition not onl y
among uses at various points of the river, but also
among various uses at the same point. The nature of
this competition depends on the extent to which there is
withdrawal of water at each point. When, for example,
water is diverted outside the basin for generating power
at an upstream station, downstream irrigation may suffer
and villages and towns may be deprived of their
drinking water supply. Engineering works at any point
of the river system depend upon and in their turn
affect the uses to which a river may be put at other
points of the system.

(1) See W.G. Moore, Dictionary of Geography p. 24; L. Dudley Stamp, The World 10th Ed. p. 44; Webster's Third New
International
Dictionary p. 182; The Oxford English Dictionary Vol. I, p. 691.
(2) A.H. Garretson, R.D. Hayton and C.J. Olmstead, The Law of International Drainage Basins, pp. 505-506; R.L.
Olson, The
Colorado River Compact, 1st Edition, pp. 20-21.
(3) See Rio Grande Compact 1938 Art. I(c); Republican River Compact 1942 Art. II; Belle Fourche River Compact 1943
Art. II B;
Pecos River Compact 1948 Art II(b); Delaware River Basin Compact 1961 Art. 1, Section 1.2(a); Arkansas River
Compact 1965
Art. II D.
(4) R.K. Linsley, M.A. Kohler and J.L.R. Paulhus, Applied Hydrology 1st Ed. (1949), p. 244.
(5) See H.A. Smith, The Economic uses of International Rivers (1931), pp. 150-151.
(6) Legal Aspects of the Hydro-Electric Development of Rivers and Lakes of Common Interest U.N. Doc. No. E/ECE/136
E/ECE/EP/98
Rev. 1, p. 26.
90
 91
Need for allocation of waters of an inter-Stat e
river among riparian States. —Division of an inter-State
river by the boundaries of several States merely limits
the geographic limits of the authority of a given State;
but unlike land resources whose distribution among the
States is resolved by the very establishment of their
boundaries, the water resources of the common river
are not subjected to automatic allocation among them
by the delineation of their political frontiers. A river is
an indivisible physical unit, and the riparian States are
296
in a state of permanent dependence upon each other.
The utilisation of the waters of the river within the
territory of one State influences the conditions of water
utilisation in other States.
There is competition for the common river water
among the riparian States, and it is, therefore, necessary
to co-ordinate their various uses and needs and to
define the limits within which a State can make use
of the water to satisfy its own needs. The conflict of
interests of the riparian States must be resolved by
agreement, judicial decree, legislation or administrative
control, so as to secure a fair and just distribution of the
water resources among the concerned States.
Constitutional provisions.—India is a Union of
States. Under Entry 56 of List I of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution, Parliament has overriding
power of legislation over "regulation of inter-State
rivers and river valleys to the extent to which such
regulation and development under the control of the
Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient
in the public interest".
In exercise of its powers under Entry 56 of List I,
Parliament enacted the River Boards Act, 1956. But
no river board has been established under the Act. Apart
from enacting the River Boards Act, 1956, Parliament
297
has not exercised its powers under Entry 56 of List I.
Under Entry 17 of List II, the Legislature of a
State has exclusive power over water, that is to say,
water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and
embankments, water storage and water power subject
to the provisions of Entry 56 of List I. Under article
162 of the Constitution, the executive power of a State
extends to the matters with respect to which the
Legislature of the State has power to make laws.
Thus, subject to competent legislation by Parlia-
ment, a State has plenary legislative and executive
powers over all water within its jurisdiction. But the
use, control and distribution of the waters of an Inter State
river and river valley within the boundaries of one State
may prejudically affect the interest of another State or
States and, if so, a water dispute between two or more
States may arise. Article 262 of the Constitution
authorises Parliament to pass laws providing for
adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-
State rivers or river valleys. It is in these terms:—
"262(1) Parliament may by law provide for
the adjudication of any dispute or complaint
with respect to the use, distribution or control
of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river 298
or river valley.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this constitution,
Parliament may by law provide that neither
the Supreme Court nor any other court shall
exercise jurisdiction in respect of an y
such dispute or complaint as is referred to
in clause (1)".
In the exercise of the power under article 262(1)
Parliament has passed the Inter-State water Disputes
Act, 1956.
Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.—Section
2(c) of the Act defines a water dispute thus:—
" 'Water dispute' means any dispute or difference
between two or more State Governments
with respect to—
(i) the use, distribution or control of the
waters of, or in, any inter-State river or
river valley; or
(ii) the interpretation of the terms of any
agreement relating to the use, distribution
or control of such waters or the im-
plementation of such agreement; or
(iii) the levy of any water rate in contravention
of the prohibition contained in Section."
Section 3 enables a State Government to make a 299
complaint as to water disputes. It provides—
"If it appears to the Government of any State
that a water dispute with the Government of
another State has arisen or is likely to arise
by reason of the fact that the interests of the
State, or of any of the inhabitants thereof, in
the waters of an inter-State river
 92

or river valley have been, or are likely to be,
affected prejudicially by:—
(a) any executive action or legislation taken
or passed, or proposed t o be taken or
passed, by the other State; or
(b) the failure of the other State or any
authority therein to exercise any of their
powers with respect to the use, distribu
tion or control of such waters; or
(c) the failure of the other State to imple
ment the terms of any agreement relat
ing to the use, distribution or control of
such waters,
the State Government may, in such form and manner as
may be prescribed, request the Central Government to
refer the water dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication."
Sections 4 and 5(1) require the Central Government, if
300
it is of opinion that the water dispute cannot be settled by
negotiations, to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal and
to refer the dispute to it for adjudication.
Section 5(2) provides that "The Tribunal shall
Investigate the matters referred to it and forward to the
Central Government a report setting out the facts as found
by it and giving its decision on the matters referred to it".
Section 6 provides that "The Central Government shall
publish the decision of the Tribunal in the Official
Gazette and the decision shall be final and binding on the
parties to the dispute and shall be given effect to by
them".
Section 11 provides that "Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law, neither the Supreme
Court nor any other court shall have or exercise
jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be
referred to a Tribunal under this Act".
A State represents all its inhabitants and water users
301
within its territory in a complaint filed by or against it
under section 3( 7). This proposition is not disputed
by any party in the present case.
A State may make a complaint under the Act if the
interests of the State or of any of its inhabitants in the
waters of an inter-State river or river valley have been or
are likely to be affected prejudicially by the action or
omission of another State with respect to the use,
distribution or control of the water. If the complaint is
justified, the Tribunal gives suitable reliefs. The
decision of the Tribunal overrides all repugnant State 302
legislation and executive action. In this manner, the
plenary powers of a State over the waters of the inter-State
river and river valley within its jurisdiction are regulated
and controlled by the decision of the Tribunal. It may be
observed that the Indus Commission( 8) held that the
plenary powers of a Province under the Government of
India Act, 1935, over the waters of an inter-Provincial river
within its own boundaries were likewise controlled by a
decision given under Sections 130 to 132 of that Act.
Thus, the equal right of each State over the waters of the
inter-State river and river valley must be respected by all,
and none is free to do what it likes with the waters within its
boundaries without respecting the interests of others.
Law applicable.—If there is competent legislation by
Parliament on the subject of the apportionment of the
waters of an inter-State river and river valley, that law
binds all the States and there is no room for an
inconsistent apportionment. The Tribunal has no power to
override the paramount Central Legislation.( 9 ) 303

(7) In an original proceeding brought before the United States Supreme Court by a State against another State for
adjudication of their respective rights in the waters of an inter-State river, the States are deemed to represent all their
citizens and water claimants within their respective territories and an adjudication of the States' rights in such a
proceeding binds the water claimants in the States as well. Wyoming v. Colorado 286 U S. 494, 506, 509 (1932) ;
Wyoming v. Colorado 298 U.S. 573, 575-576 (1936); Nebraska v. Wyoming 295 U.S. 40 (1935); M.C. Hinderlater
v. La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company 304 U.S. 92-82 L. Ed. 1202, 1210; New Jersey v. New York
345 U.S. 369, 372 (1953). See also Report of the Indus (Rau) Commission Vol. I, pp. 39-40.
(8) Report of the Indus (Rau) Commission Vol. I, pp. 21, 32-33, 63, 107.
(9) In Arizona v. California 373 U.S. 546 (1963) at pp. 565, 566, the United States Supreme Court observed "It is true
that the court
has used the doctrine of equitable apportionment to decide river controversies between States. But in those cases
Congress had
not made any statutory apportionment. In this case, we have decided that Congress has provided its own method for
allocating
among the lower Basin States the mainstream water to which they are entitled under the Compact. Where Congress
has so exer
cised its constitutional power over waters, courts have no power to substitute their own notions of an 'equitable
apportionment'
for the apportionment chosen by Congress."
 93

Sections 2 and 3 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act,
1956 indicate that, if there is an agreement between the
States relating to the use, distribution or control of the
waters, that agreement should be implemented. The
agreement determines their respective rights and
obligations and furnishes the agreed "law" on the subject.
(10)
Likewise competent arbitral awards and judicial decrees
should be respected.
In the absence of legislation, agreement, award or
decree, the Tribunal has to decide the dispute in such a
way as will recognize the equal rights of the contending
States and at the same time establish justice between
them.(ll) Equal right does not mean an equal division
304
of the water. ( l2 ) It means an equitable apportionment of
the benefits of the river, each unit getting a fair share.(13 )
Equitable apportionment.—The decisions of the U.S.A.
Supreme Court firmly established the doctrine of equitable
apportionment of the benefits of an inter-State river. The
principle was earlier recognised by the Swiss Federal
Tribunal in 1878(14) and it also contains the essence of
international law on the matter. (15)
In India also, the right of States in an inter-State river
is determined by applying the rule of equitable
apportionment, each unit getting a fair share of the water
of the common river. The doctrine of riparian rights
governs the rights of private parties, but it does not
305 afford a satisfactory basis for settling inter-State water
disputes. (16)
Broad concept.—The concept of equitable apportionment
does not land itself to precise formulations. Its meaning
cannot be written into a code that can be
applied to all situations and at all times. The standard of
an equitable apportionment requires an adaptation of the
formula to the necessities of the particular situation. ( 17 )
The effort always is to secure an equitable apportionment
without quibbling over formulas. (18)
There is no mechanical formula of equitable
apportionment_applicable to all rivers. Each river system
has its own peculiarities. In arid regions, the principal need
may be for irrigation, while in humid regions there may be
more need for power plants, municipal water supply,
navigation and preservation of fisheries. One river system
may be more fully developed than another; in one there
may be scarcity of water, while in another the supply may
be abundant. In one river system, the States may place 306
emphasis on co-operative approach for optimum development
of water resources; in another they may desire nothing
more than an apportionment of the water for their separate
uses. In one river the water diverted for developing the best
hydro-power potential may be wasted to the sea; in another
the tailrace water may be profitably used again for irrigation
downstream.
In one river system, storage works may predominate;
while in another there may be more diversion works and
barrages requiring different schemes for allocation of the
river water. In one river, there may be reliable
measurement of historical discharges at key sites; in
another such data may not be available. In one system, the
river flow is perennial; in another the flow lasts during the
monsoon months only. The apportionment of water resources
must take into account the peculiar physical, hydrological,
economic, political and legal characteristics of the river
system and the territory drained and served thereby and the
solution of the dispute must be shaped according- ly.(19)

(10) Report of the Indus (Rau) Commission Vol. I, pp. 10, 31.
(11) Kansas v. Colorado 206 U.S. 46, 98.
(12) Wyoming v. Colorado 259 U.S. 419, 465.
(13) Kansas v. Colorado 206 U.S. 46 118; Colorado v. Kansas 320 U.S. 383, 385.
(14) The Zwillikon Dam case. See H.A. Smith, The Economic uses of International Rivers (1907) pp. 39, 40; W.L.
Griffin, The Uses
of Waters of International Drainage Basins under Customary International Law, American Journal of International
Law, Vol.
53 (1959), p. 66.
(15) H.A. Smith, The Economic uses of International Rivers, p. 51; J.D. Chapman, The International River Basin
(1963), p. 23
Helsinki Rules Article IV.
(16) See Report of the Indus (Rau) Commission Vol. I, pp. 10,13, 33, 36,41; The Indian Easements Act, 1882, Section 7,
Illustrations (h)
and (i); Kansas v. Colorado 206 U.S. 46, 87, 105; Connecticut v Massachusetts 282 U.S. 660, 670.
(17) Nebraska v. Wyoming 325 U.S. 589, 627.
(18) New Jersey v. New York 283 U.S. 336, 343.
(19) R E. Clark Water and Water Rights (1967) Vol. II, p. 427; Legal Aspects of the Hydro-Electric Development of Rivers
and Lakes
of Common Interest U.N. Doc. No. E/ECE/136 E/ECE/EP/98 Rev. I, pp. 40,41; H.A. Smith, The Economic Uses of
International
Rivers (1931), p. 87.
 94
307
Guidelines.—Equitable apportionment calls for the
exercise of informed judgment on a consideration of many
variable yet important factors, such as, the hy-drological,
climatic and physical characteristics of the river basin, the
volume of available supply, diversions and return flow, the
Statewise drainage area and contribution to the supply, the
respective needs of the States, the population dependent on
the water supply and the degree of their dependence,
alternative means of satisfying the needs, the extent of
lawfully established uses and reasonable requirements for
future uses in each State, the relative value of different uses,
and the avoidance of unnecessary waste of water. The
list of relevant factors is illustrative and not exhaustive. (20)
in water do not afford a satisfactory basis for settling
inter-State water disputes.(23)
The needs of the riparian States include all their economic
and social requirements which cause them to be dependent
to a greater or lesser degree on the river water. Varying
degrees of dependence on water in arid and humid climates 309
create varying degrees of need.(24 ) Existing use of a State
is important evidence of its needs. Demands for potential
uses are capable of indefinite expansion.(25) Equitable appor-
tionment can take into account only such requirements
for prospective uses as are reasonable having regard to the
available supply and the needs of the other States.(26)

The weight to be given to a relevant factor is a matter
of judgment on the pertinent facts of the particular case
and no hard and fast rule can be laid down.
The relevant factors emphasised in the 1959 Egyptian
Sudanese Treaty were the arable areas easily irrigated in
308 each country, the population of the States, the existing
uses and in a less degree the financial contribution of each
to the development projects. The State's contribution to
the available river flow was not the crucial factor in the
apportionment of the Nile waters.( 21) In the North
Platte river litigation( 22 ) Colorado was allotted about
3 per cent of the river flow, though it contributed 21 per
cent of the flow.
No State has a proprietary interest in a particular volume
of water of an inter-State river on the basis of its
contribution or irrigable area. Rules of law based on the
analogy of private proprietary interests
Scarcity areas are heavily dependent on river water for
irrigation and the needs of such areas, should receive
special consideration.
If all the uses cannot be reconciled, it becomes necessary to
ascertain which uses will prevail(27) In regulating the
confl ict s of di fferent interests, a n a t t e m p t i s
ma d e t o a p p r a i s e a n d r an k them in order of 310
value, laying down that in the given situation one
interest is to be preferred to another(28)
An allocation of water may be made so as to maximise
economic gains(29) but an established use may have to be
protected, though the same amount of water may
produce more in other sections of the river( 30)
Needless waste of water should be prevented and efficient
utilisation encouraged(31)

(20) Some guidelines are given in Helsinki Rules Article V(2); Nebraska v. Wyoming 325 U.S. 589, 618; Report of Michael
J. Doherty, Special Master in the same case p. 109; W.L. Griffin, The Uses of Waters of International Drainage
Basins under Customary International Law, The American Journal of International Law Vol. 53 (1959) pp. 50, 77-
78.
(21) Rolet Chi-Shih Chen, The Non-Navigational uses of International Rivers (1965), p. 156.
(22) Nebraska v. Wyoming 325 U.S. 589, 592 fm. 621, 665.
(23) Report of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reforms 1934 Vol. I Part I para 225.
(24) A.H. Garretson and others, The Law of International Drainage Basins (1967), pp. 44, 55-56.
(25) J. Hsrschleifer, J.C. De Haven J.W. Milliman, Water Supply (Economics, Technology and Policy), pp. 35-36.
(26) W.L. Griffin, The Uses of Waters of International Drainage Basins under Customary International Law, The
American Journal
of International Law Vol. 53 (1959) p. 50, 78 (possible future development in the light of what is a reasonable use of
the water by
each riparian).
(27) A.H. Garretson and others, The Law of International Drainage Basins (1967), p. 47.
(28) H. A. Smith, The Economic Uses of International Rivers (1931), p. 139.
(29) Administrative Reforms Commission, Report of the Study Team on Centre-State Relationships (1967) Vol. 1,
pp. 228-229;
Joseph L. Sax, Water Law Planning and Policy (1968), p. 86; R.E. Clark, Water and Water Rights (1967) Vol. II, p.
347.
(30) Nebraska v. Wyoming 325 U.S. 589, 621.
(31) Wyoming v. Colorado 259 U.S. 419, 484; Report of the Indus (Rau) Commission Vol. I, pp. 52-54; C.B.
Bourne, The
right to utilize Water of International Rivers, The Canadian Year Book of International Law, 1965 Vol. III, pp.
214-218; A.H.
Garretson and others, The Law of International Drainage Basins (1967), p. 46.
 95

We shall discuss elsewhere more elaborately the principles
of equitable apportionment relating to existing uses,
preferential uses and diversion of river water to another
watershed.
311 Meanwhile, we must point out certain peculiarities of
U.S.A. Supreme Court decisions and of international law
and the caution required in applying them for resolving
inter-State water controversies in India. We shall also
notice the law and practice in British India regarding
inter-Provincial water disputes, and the role of planning
of water resources development in India after the
Constitution came into force.
U.S.A. Supreme Court decisions: The great merit of the
U.S.A. Supreme Court decisions is that they enunciate the
broad principles of equitable apportionment. However, in the
concrete application of the principle, those decisions are
guided by the peculiar constitutional framework and domestic
water law of U.S.A., which in many respects are different
from those of India. A few points of difference may be
noted.
The American States were originally independent
sovereign units. Upon the Congress consenting, an inter-
State compact operates to the same effect as a treaty
between sovereign States( 32) and becomes a law of the
Union.(33) In India, the States were not originally
312
independent sovereign units, (34) and an inter-State
agreement is not a treaty between sovereign States, nor
does it become a law of the Union.
The U.S.A. Supreme Court cannot issue declara-tory
decrees.(35) An international tribunal is not subject to this
limitation, (36) nor is the power of an Indian Tribunal so
fettered by the Inter-State Water Disputes Act. If
declaratory relief cannot be granted, an adjudication of
an inter-State water dispute is an inadequate tool for
purposes of planning. (37)
Moreover, the local water laws, the financial structure 313
and the national planning in India are in many ways
different from those of U.S.A.(38)
For all these reasons, the U.S.A. Supreme Court decisions
cannot be blindly applied to Indian conditions, nor are they
binding authorities in India. They furnish guidelines on broad
general principles of equity and are useful examples of
solutions of conflicting claims of States in inter-State water
controversies. The decisions of other foreign federal courts
stand on the same footing.
International Law. Historically, sovereign States were
primarily concerned with non-consumptive uses of water of
international river such as navigation and fishing. Competing
claims of riparian States to consumptive uses of water for
irrigation and other purposes and rules of international law,
if any, regulating such uses are of comparatively recent
origin. Opinions of jurists and associations of jurists on
international law do not always distinguish the law as it
really is from the law as they think it should be.( 39)
Moreover, there is a clear distinction between international 314
law and national law governing States bound by a
Federation. (40)

In U.S.A., the territorial boundaries of the States are
permanent and sacrosanct. In India, the areas and
boundaries of the States can be altered by Parliament. New
States have been created and individual States have been
extinguished by Parliamentary legislation.
The Swiss Federal Tribunal rightly observed (41) "Within a
federal state and subject to its legislation, the situation is
different from that between fully sovereign states. Not only
is the community between riparian States—recognised in
international law—clo-

(32) Rhode Island, v Massachusets 12 Pet, 657, 725; Constitution of the United States of America revised by Prof.
Corwin (1952),
p. 370.
(33) Missouri v. Illinois 200 U.S. 496, 519; Constitution of the United States of America, Article VI.
(34) State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1964) 1 S.C.R. 371 396
(35) Arizona v. California 283 U.S. 423, 464.
(36) A H. Garretson and others, The law of International Drainage Basins (1967), p. 59.
(37) R.E. Clark, Water and Water Rights (1967) Vol. II, p. 363.
(38) Administrative Reforms Commission, Report of the Study Team on Centre-State Relationships (1967) Vol. I, p. 125.
(39) See F J. Berber Rivers in International Law (1959), pp. 40, 259; Rolet Chi-Shi Chen, The non Navigational uses
of Interna
tional Rivers (1965) pp. 183, 210.
(40) See Judgement of the German Federal Tribunal in Donauversinkung case cited in F. J. Berber, Rivers in International
Law (1959),
pp. 175-176.
(41) Fribourg v. Fedreal Council 78 T.F.I. p.37 cited in W.J.Rise, Law among States in Federacy pp. 3-17, 3-18.

1 M of 1 & P/73–14
 96

ser between federated states, but above all they have a
positive law which binds them all and a law dispenser
that stands above them all." Subject to these reservations,
decisions of courts and tribunals and opinion of jurists
on international law may be consulted if they give
sensible suggestions for resolving inter-State water
controversies.
Law and Practice in British India : British India
was divided into Provinces. Till 1921, irrigation
works were subject to the unitary control of the Central
P.W.D. Since 1921, under the Government of India
Act, 1915, as amended by the Government of India Act,
315 1919, "Water supplies" became a provincial subject, but
even then the Government of India could decide inter-
Provincial water disputes. The report of the Joint
Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform (1934) ( 42 )
observed:
"Water supplies" is now a Provincial Subject for
legislation and administration, but the Central
Legislature may also legislate upon it "with
regard to matters of inter-provincial concern or
affecting the relations of a Province with any
other territory". Its administration in a
Province is reserved to the Governor in
Council, and is, therefore, under the
ultimate control of the Secretary of State,
with whom the final decision rests when claims
or disputes arise between one Provincial
Government and another, or between a
Province and a State."
The Government of India used to decide inter-
Provincial water disputes on administrative considerations.
In letter No.IR45 dated the 18th March, 1935 from the
Secretary to the Government of India, Department of
Industries and Labour (Public Works Branch), to the
Government of United Provinces, Public Works
Department, Irrigation Branch,(43 ) the Government of
316
India stated: "the decisions of the Government of India in
inter-Provincial disputes relating to the distribution of
water are based upon administrative, and not legal,
considerations. Each case must therefore be taken
separately and no deci-
sion can operate as a general precedent". Conse-
quently these decisions are not of much help in deter-
mining the fair share of the units of a Federation in
the waters of an inter-State river.
Before Independence, the Government of India as
the paramount power settled water disputes between a
Province and an Indian State or between two or more
Indian States.(44) Even under the Government of India
Act, 1935, paramountcy control continued with respect 317
to unfederated States. (45) Though the Government of
India in the exercise of its powers of paramountcy control
professed to apply rules of international law and the
precept of the greatest good to the greatest number
irrespective of political boundaries, the actual settlement
of the disputes used to be made on political
considerations.
Under the Government of India Act, 1935, as from the
1st April, 1937, water became an exclusive provincial
subject and specific provision was made in sections 130 to
134 of the Act for decision of water disputes. The Report
of the Indus Commission appointed under section 131 of
the Act contains a valuable exposition of the principles of
equitable apportionment of the benefits of a common river
with particular reference to Indian conditions.
Planning of water resources development in India
und er t h e Con sti t utio n : As wat er includin g
irrigation and water power is a State subject (Entry 17,
List II), it is the State Governments which investigate and
formulate schemes for development of water resources and
ultimately accord administrative approval to them.
However, as economic and social planning is a
Concurrent subject (Entry 20, List III), the Union 318
Government as well as the State Governments prepare five
year and annual plans for developing the country's
resources. The Union Government has the
discretionary power under article 282 of the Constitution to
make grants for any public purpose including grants to
State Governments for financing the State plans. For
obtaining these grants, the State Governments are
required to obtain clearance of their projects from the
Pl anning Commission. When a

(42) Report of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reforms Vol. I Part I page 124 para 224.
(43) File No. I.R. 45(1) of 1935 Serial No. 6 Government of India, Department of Industries and Labour (Public Works
Branch) Civil
Works—Irrigation, (Subject—Rejection of the claim of the Government of the United Provinces for compensation on
account of
the impending decrease in the supply of water from the River Jumna to the Agra Canal as a result of the scheme for
the impro
vement of water supply arrangements in Delhi.
(44) White Paper on Indian States pp. 9,151 (Lord Reading's letter to the Nizam of Hyderabad, dated the 27th March,
1926); History
of the Dispute regarding the Ruparel river with the Alwar State compiled by the Bharatpur State Council from
State Records
(1904), pp. 12-13.
(45) Section 285 of the Government of India Act 1935, N. Rajagopala Aiyangar's Commentary on the Government of
India Act 1935. p. 169.
 97
scheme has been fully investigated and a project re-port is
prepared, the report is submitted by the State Government to
the Central Water and Power Commission. After scrutiny
of the technical and economic feasibility of the project,
the latter makes a report to the Technical Advisory
Committee on Irrigation, Flood Control and Power Projects
of the Government of India. This Committee advises
the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Irrigation
and Power on the suitability of the scheme for inclusion in
the Plan. The schemes are included in the Plan by the
Planning Commission, keeping in view the country's
resources and the best method for their effective and balanced
utilisation.
In view of the dependence of the States on Central grants,
the Union Government plays a dominant role in planning
319 the development of water resources and may withhold
clearance of projects on an inter-State river until a
consensus is reached between the concerned States
regarding distribution of the waters of
the inter-State river between them. However, the Union
Government and the Planning Commission have no statutory
authority to allocate the water resources among the States or
to fix the order of priorities for their projects. If a water
dispute arises and the same cannot be settled by
negotiations, a reference has to be made to a Tribunal
appointed under the Inter-States Water Disputes Act,
1956, for adjudication of the dispute.
After a water dispute has arisen, the Planning Commission
may withhold clearance of new projects on an inter-State
river, until the river water is apportioned by the Tribunal
between the States and the Planning Commission is
satisfied that the State concerned is entitled to appropriate
the water required for its new projects. In view of the
dependence of the States on Central grants, it becomes
absolutely necessary for them to obtain an adjudication of the
dispute and a declaration of their respective rights in the
available supply, so that they may obtain clearance of their
projects from the Planning Commission.
 CHAPTER XII
320
Protection of existing uses
Protection of exiting uses; Issue II (3) Pleadings: The
supplies of the Krishna river system are sufficient to meet
the requirements of all the existing uses, but they are not
sufficient to meet the requirements of both existing and
contemplated uses. The question arises whether, in fixing
the equitable shares of the-parties, claims for existing uses
should be preferred to claims for contemplated uses.
Andhra Pradesh having appropriated a large portion of
the supplies of the Krishna waters is vitally interested in the
preservation of its existing uses. Andhra Pradesh
pleaded that, in case of de novo allocation, the committed
utilisations of the Krishna waters should be divided into three
categories, (1) committed as in 1951, (2) committed
between 1951 and September 1960 and (3) committed after
September 196O. Committed utilisation means utilisation by
schemes in operation as well, as by schemes in the process
of implementation and execution. The case of Andhra Pradesh
is that all utilisations committed up to 1951 are sacrosanct
and are entitled to the fullest protection, and should get
full and timely supply on a daily basis as a first priority.
Utilisations committed between 1951 and September, 1960
321
are also entitled to full protection and should get full and
timely supply on a weekly basis with second priority to new
schemes.
After allowing the committed utilisations up to
September 1960, the balance water only should be
considered for de novo allocations. Clearance of projects by
the Central Government after 1960 in spite of objection or
without knowledge of the concerned States ought not to be
taken into account by the Tribunal.
Maharashtra and Mysore disputed the classification of
committed utilisations into three categories and the claim of
Andhra Pradesh for protection of its projects. (1)
Accordingly, the following issue was raised:-—
Issue II(3): What projects and works in operation or
under construction, if any, should be
protected and/or permitted? If so, to what
extent ?
(1) APK 1 pp 49,55, 123-125, 129-132, 134-135; MRK III pp. 65-72; MYK III pp. 34-40
(2) Report of the Indus (Rau) Commission Vol. I, p. 11.
98
Meaning of protection: The term "protection" as used in
the issues, agreed statements and this judgment must be
understood to mean that, in allocating the water, certain
existing uses for which protection is claimed and granted 322
should be preferred to contemplated uses. In fixing the
equitable shares of the States, the claims of such existing
uses should be allowed before claims for future uses are
taken up for consideration. It is not intended that the
existing uses must continue or that they should not be
changed in future.
All projects whether protected or not will get such supply
as will be available to them under the final scheme of
allocation. It is not intended that simply because a project is
protected it will get full and timely supply on a daily or
weekly basis in priority to any other project.
Law on the subject of priority of existing uses over
contemplated uses: On the question whether existing uses
occupy a preferred position over contemplated uses in
equitable apportionment, we shall briefly notice (1) Indian
law and practice, (2) law in U.S.A. and (3) international
law.
Indus (Rau) Commission: The Indus (Rau) Commission
laid down the following general principles for equitable
distribution of the waters of inter-Provincial rivers( 2):—
"In the general interests of the entire community
inhabiting dry, arid territories, priority may
usually have to be given for an earlier irrigation
project over a later one: 'priority of appropriation
gives superiority of right' (Wyoming v. Colorado 323
259 U.S. 419, 459, 470).
For purposes of priority, the date of the project is
not the date when survey is first commenced,
but the date when the project reaches finality
and there is a fixed and definite purpose t o
take it up and carry it
 99
through, (Wyoming v. Colorado 259 U.S.
419, 494, 495 Connecticut v. Massachussets
282 U.S. 660, 667, 673)".
Earlier Indian Practice.—In the matter of the dis-
pute regarding the Ruparel River in 1843, the Gov-
ernment of India pronounced that rights of possession
regarding existing appropriations should be respected
and preserved (5)
In the dispute over the waters of the Sutlej in
1918, the concerned States and Provinces agreed that
established rights should be fully Safeguarded or com-
pensated for.(4)
Law in U.S.A. —For the settlers in the dry and
arid tracts of the Western States, priority of appropriations
in time assumed a greater significance than in humid
areas and the law of prior appropriation prevailed in
those States. Under that law, the one who first
appropriated water and put it to beneficial use thereby
324
acquired a vested right to continue to divert and use that
quantity of water against all claimants junior to him in
point of ti me. "First in time first in right" is the
short-hand expression of this legal principle. (5)
In Wyoming v Colorado, (6 ) the U.S.A. Supreme
Court applied the doctrine of priority of appropriation
in equitable allocation of waters of inter-State streams.
As the available supply of the Laramie river was not
sufficient to satisfy Wyoming's prior appropriations
dependent thereon and the proposed Colorado
appropriations, the Court determined Wyoming's share of
the water on lumping up the reasonable requirements of
Wyoming's prior appropriations and allocated the
remaining water to Colorado. The Court held that a
project was entitled to priority from the date when the
actual work of construction was begun, and not from a
date anterior to the time when there was a fixed and
definite purpose to take it up and carry it through.
While priority of appropriation is the guiding rule, it
i s not conclusive in equitable allocation. In
Nebraska v. Wyoming(7) the junior uses of Colorado
(3) History of the Dispute regarding Ruparel river with the Alwar State compiled by the Bharatpur State Council
from State
records 1904, p 12.
(4) Report of the Indus (Anderson) Committee Vol. IT, p. 60.
(5) Arizona v. California 373 U.S. 543, 555
(1963).
(6)259 U S. 419, 469-471, 489-496.
(7) 325 U S pp 585 618, 621-622.
(8) Bel Bhadar Pershad Singh v. Sheik, Barkat Ali, 11, CWN, 85.
(9) J. D. Chapman, The International River 1963, pp. 22-23.
(10) A. H . Garretson and others. The Law of International Drainage Basins (1967), pp. 57-58.
were allowed to prevail over the senior uses of Nebraska 325
having regard to Colorado's countervailing equities and
established economy based on existing uses of the
water.
The American doctrine of prior appropriation is not
applicable in India as between individual riparian owners
even in a part of the country where the soil is dry,
rocky and parched. ( 8) However, the domestic water law is
not necessarily of controlling weight in an inter-state water
controversy. The Indus (Rau) Commission has held that
in equitable allocation of the waters of inter-Provincial
rivers in India, priority of appropriation might give
superiority of right.
International Law.—Existing use is one of the fac- tors
which should be taken, into account in determining
what is a just and equitable, sharing of the benefits of an
international river basin. (9)
In determining what is equitable utilisation where
existing and contemplated uses are in conflict, while other
factors must be considered and weighed, the most
important single factor is the preferred position of the
existing use; thus, an existing use which is beneficial and
not wasteful will ordinarily prevail over
a contemplated use. But a contemplated conflicting
use will nevertheless prevail over an existing use if
326
the former offers benefits of such magnitude as is
sufficient to outweigh the injury to the existing use.(10)
Article VIII of the Helsinki Rules of the Inter-
national Law Association on the uses of international
streams offers the following guidelines.
1. An existing reasonable use may continue in
operation unless the factors justifying its
continuance are outweighed by other factors
leading to the conclusion that it be modified or
terminated so as to accommodate a
competing incompatible use.
2. (a) A use that is in fact operational is deem-
ed to have been an existing use from the time of
the initiation of construction directly
 100
related to the use or, where such construction
is not required, the undertaking of comparable
acts of actual implementation.
(b) Such a use continues to be an existing use
until such time as it is discontinued with
the intention that it be abandoned.
3. A use will not be deemed an existing use if at the
time of becoming operational it is incompatible
with an already existing reasonable use.
327
J. G. Laylin and B. M. Clagett(11) observe that in
case of competition between new or proposed beneficial
uses and old lawfully established beneficial uses they
know of no instance in which a State under the principle
of equitable apportionment has been required to
relinquish, without full replacement from other sources, a
lawfully established beneficial use in order to enable a
coriparian State to develop a new use or uses of the
same kind. To be lawfully established, a beneficial use
"must not have been established over the timely protest of
a coriparian State which offered to resolve by peaceful
means including, if necessary, arbitration or
adjudication the question whether the use comes within
the equitable share of the State proposing it."(12)
Existing uses on the Krishna River System.—Some
uses of the Krishna waters were lawfully established
before 1951. Since 1951, a number of projects were
cleared by the Planning Commission. No objection was
raised by the States to the implementation of the projects
sanctioned by the Planning Commission until September,
1960. An inter-State conference was held on the 26th and
27th September, 1960 to discuss the re-allocation of the
Krishna waters in view of the reorganisation of States. At
the conference, Maharashtra and Mysore insisted on a de
novo allocation of the Krishna waters and demanded that
328
until such allocation, the clearance of new projects should
be withheld. The protest against clearance of new
projects was followed by applications by Mysore in
January. 1962 and by Maharasht ra in June, 1963
for
(11) J. G Laylin and B. M. Clagett. The allocation of waters of International streams in Economics and Public policy
in Water
Resource Development edited by Smith and Castle 1964 Ed. p. 428.
(12) Ibid. pp 428, 445 f. n. (14)
see also Report of the Fifty Second Conference International Law Association. Helsinki 1966 p. 454.
(13) MRK 11 p. 215.
(14) MRDK VIU pp. 61-63.
reference of the dispute to the Tributed for adjudication.
We find that all commitments made up to September,
1960 were made without any protest from any co-riparian
State under the bona fide belief that the committed
utilisations will be allowed to continue. At the meeting of
September, 1960 Maharashtra was pre-pared to honour
all physical commitments up to September, 1960( 13 )
Before us, both Maharashtra and Mysore wanted
protection for all their projects committed up to
September, 1960.
We also find that all commitments made after
September, 1960 were set up over the protest of
coriparian States.
Maharashtra and Mysore do not want protection for
any projects committed after September, 1960 un-less the
project is protected by agreement or concession of the
parties. Even Andhra Pradesh in its pleadings did not
claim any protection for such projects. In the agreed
statement filed on the 7th May, 1971, all parties
conceded that a few projects committed after September, 329
1960 should be protected.
Priority of existing uses on the Krishna River Sys-
tem.—We are satisfied that prima facie the reasonable
requirements of all projects in operation or under
construction as on September, I960 should be preferred
to contemplated uses and should be protected.
Any utilisation made after September, 1960 by
such projects in excess of the utilisation envisaged in
September, 1960 should be regarded as a new appro-
priation made after September, 1960.
Prima facie except by special agreement or concession
of the parties a project committed after September, 1960
is not entitled to any priority over contemplated uses.
Agreed statement dated the 7th May, 1971.—On the
7th May, 1971(14) the parties filed an agreed statement
that the following projects and the quan-
 101

330 tum of their utilisations and evaporation losses as mentioned below should be protected. —

Sl. No. Name of the Project Name of the Agreed Remarks

State in which
Quantum of Evaporation Total
utilisation losses in T.M.C.
T.M.C. T.M.C.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
K-l

1. Krishna canal ex-Khodshi weir Maharashtra 2.70 Nil 2.7

2. Koyana Hydro Electric Stages I &
II . . . . .
. -do- 67.50 7.30 74.8
3 Warna . . . . . -do- 40.55 7.10 47.7
. Tulshi .
4. . . . . -do- 2.31 0.28 2.6
. -do- 10.00 1.00 11 0
5. Radhanagari
K-2
Mysore 98.50 4.50 103.0
6. Upper Krishna State I
K-3
-do- 34.8 1.75 36.6
7. Ghataprabha Stages I & II
K-4
331
-do- 31.1 6.10 37.2

8. Malaprabha . . .
9. (a) Tata Hydel Power Scheme
(b) Andhra Valley Power Scheme Maharashtra 42.60 2.40 45.0
(c) Tata Power Scheme (Mulshi)
10. Mutha System Ex-Khadakwasla -do- 22.4 1.10 23.5

11. Ghod Dam . . . . -do- 8.40 2.00 10.4

331 . Kukadi
12. . . . . -do- 18.00 2.07 20.1
.13. VisapurTank . . . . -do- 0.4 0.10 0.5
.14. Bhima . . . . . -do- 70.00 20.20 90.2
.
15. Nira Canal System . . -do- 32.30 2.30 34.6
.16. Vir Dam . . . . -do- 14.40 0.30 14.7
. Mhaswad
17. . . . . -do-- 1.60 0.60 2.2
18. Ashti Tank . . . . do- 0.30 0.40 0.7

19. Mangi Tank . . . -do- 0.90 0.20 1.1

.
20. Ekruk Tank . . . -do- 0.80 1.00 18
.
21. KhasapurTank . . . -do- 1.00 0.30 1.3
.
22. Sholapur City Water Supply -do- 0.30 Nil 0.3 Total withdrawal
Scheme 1.6 T.M.C. only
20 percent is
considered as
consumptive use.
K-6
23. Kurnool . . . . -do- 1.40 0.10 1.5
.24. Chandrampalli . . Mysore 1.72 0.15 1.9
. Kotepallivagu
25. Andhra Pradesh 1.70 0.26 2.0
. . . .
 102

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
K-7

26. Koilsagar . . . . Andhra Pradesh 3.40 0.50 3.9

.
27. Okachettivagu . . . . -do- 1.67 0.25 1.9
28. Dindi . . . . do- 3.01 0.70 3.7 Andhra Pradesh re-
. serves the right to
claim the differ-
ence of 1.6
T.M.C. as water
required for the
project dehors
protected uses.
332 29 Guntur Channel . . . -do- 4.00 Nil 4.0
30 . -do- 2.60 Nil 2.6
Vaikuntapuram Pumping Scheme

K-8
31 Bhadra Anicut Mysore 3.10 Nil 3.1
. . . .
32 Tunga Anicut . . . . -do- 11.50 Nil 11.5
33 Ambligola . . . . -do- 1.30 0.10 1.4
34 .Anjanapur Reservoir -do- 2.20 0.33 2.5
35. Dharama Canal System and
Dharma -do- \ 2.00 0.20 2.2
Project .
36 Tungabhadra .
Right .Bank.Low .
Level -do- 19.00 3.5 22.5
Canal
37 Tungabhadra . Right
. Bank . Low . .
Level Canal . . . . Andhra Pradesh 24.00 5.50 29.5
.
38 Tungabhadra Right Bank High
Level
Canal (Stages I & II) Mysore 17.50 Nil 17.5
39 Tungabhadra Right Bank High
1evel
Canal (Stages 1 & II) Andhra Pradesh 32.50 Nil 32.5
40 Hagari Bommanahalli Mysore 1.5 0.5 2.0
41. Gajuladinne Andhra Pradesh 1.8 0.2 2.0
. . . .
K-9
42 Bhairavanitippa . . . -do- 4.10 0.80 4.9
43 .Vanivilas Sagar . . . Mysore 5.90 2.30 8.2
.
K-10

333 44 Musi Andhra Pradesh 8.41 1.00 9.4

45 Water Supply to twin city
Hydera-
bad & Secundrabad -do- 3.1 3.9 Evaporation =3.1
0.82 T.M.C.
20 percent of.
water
supply use=0.52
T.M.C.
Sewage Farm=0.30
T.M.C.
Total : 3.92 T.M.C
 103

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
K-11
46. Palair . . . . Andhra Pradesh 3.27 0.68 4.0
.
47. Pakhal Lake . . . -do- 1.78 0.85 2.6
48. Muniyeru . . . -do- 3.29 Nil 3.3
49. Lankasagar . . . -do- 0.80 0.20 1.0
50. Wyra . . . . - do- 2.84 0.88 3.7
.
Projects in respect of which there is a dispute a dispute as to whether they should be protected and, if
whether they should be protected and, if so, to what so, what quantum of utilisations and evaporation losses
extent.—On the 7th May, 1971 the parties filed an should be protected(15)
agreed list of projects in respect of which there was

334
The list is as follows : —
S Name of Name Quantum of Evaporation losses Total gross (i.e. Protec
l. Project of the utilisation including evaporation ted
a b c a b c
Maha- Mysor A.P. Maha Mysor A.P. a b c

Maha- Mysor A.P.

rashtra e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

K-l
(All figures are in T.M.C.)
1 Krishna Maha- 33.6 33.0 33.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 36.9 36.3 36.3 * *Subject
. rashtra to
argument
K-3 on
2 Gokak Canal Mysore 1.40 1.40 Nil Nil Nil Nil 1.4 1.4 Nil
.
K-7
3 Sarisailam Andhra Nil Nil Nil 33.00 33.0
Pradesh
A Nagarjuna
4
Sagar -do- 149.5 149.5 264.0 14.0 14.0 17.0 163.5 163.5 281.0
5 Krishna Delta -do- 161.0 161.0 214.0 Nil Nil 4.0 161.0 161.0 218.0
.
K-8
6 Bhadra Re-
servoir Mysore 56.8 56.8 46.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 61.7 61.7 51.5
7 Tungabhadra
Low Level
335 Left Bank -do- 92.3 92.3 56.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 101.3 101.3 65.0
8 Vijayanagar
Channels -do- Nil 13.7 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 13.7 Nil
9 Rajolibunda -do- 0.80 0.80 1.20 Nil Nil Nil 0.8 0.8 1.20* *Subject
Diversion to argument
on
regeneration
10 -do- Andhra 10.00 10.00 15.90 Nil Nil Nil 10.0 10.0 15.9
Pradesh
11 Kurnool
Cuddapa
h Canal -do- 20.0 19.0 69.4 Nil Nil Nil 20.0 19.0 69.4
(15) MRDK VIII pp. 64-65.
1 M of I & P/73— 15
 104
336
We now proceed to discuss the projects mentioned in
the last statement as also minor irrigation in respect of
which there is a dispute as to the extent of protection.
(1) Krishna Project.—The Krishna Project is an
irrigation project with storages at Dhom and Bork-
hal on the Krishna river and at Kanher on the Venna
river, and canals for irrigation in Satara and Sangli
Districts of Maharashtra. The command area of the
project falls within the rain shadow region of the
Bombay Deccan. The project is under construc
tion.
On the 25th June, 1973, all the parties made the
following statement :—
''All parties are agreed that the annual utilisation of
33.00 T.M.C. and the evaporation loss of 3.3
T.M.C. under the Krishna Project of
Maharashtra shoul d be protected."
In allocating the waters of the river Krishna, the annual
utilisation of 33.00 T.M.C. and evaporation loss of
3.3 T.M.C. under the Krishna Project of Maharashtra
should be preferred to contemplated uses.
(2) Gokak Canal—Mysore claims an allowance
of 1.4 T.M.C. of water for the Gokak canal. Andhra
Pradesh disputes the claim. (16)
337 The Gokak canal is in operation for over 84
years.(17) Originally, the canal took off from the Dhupdal
Weir on the Ghataprabha and there was an average annual
diversion of 1.4 T.M.C. of water for its ayacut. The Kokak
canal now takes off from the Ghataprabha Left Bank Canal.
According to Mysore, the index map of the Hidkal Dam
Project Stage I Report (18) shows that the area under the
Gokak canal is not included in the command of the
Ghataprabha Left Bank Canal. But the Krishna Godavari
Commission stated (10) that ayacut under the Gokak canal
was merged with the Ghataprabha Left Bank Canal in
1951.
(16) MRDK VIII p. 64.
(17) MYPK X p. 3 (constructed in 1883), KGCR Ann. VIII p. 107 (in operation from 1889).
(18) MYPK XII, Index Map.
(19) KGCR Ann. VIII pp. 107, 112, 133.
(20) MYDK XII pp. 94, 96.
(21) MYDK I p. 216; MRDK II p. 119.
(22) MYDK II p. 350.
In August 1959, the Chief Engineer, P. W. D.
Irrigation Project, Mysore stated : "The irrigable area
under the Gokak Canal taken from the Dhupdal Weir is
included in the irrigable area of the Left Bank Canal of
the Ghataprabha Project first stage 0 to 44 miles and the
water requirements for the Ghataprabha Left Bank Canal
have been calculated taking this area under the Gokak Canal
and also the discharges available in the Dhupdal Weir
throughout the year.(20)
The annual utilisation of 34.8 T.M.C. under
Ghataprabha Project Stages I and II has been protected. 338
No separate provision for the Gokak Canal is necessary
as its water requirement will be met from the water
provided for the Ghataprabha Left Bank Canal.
The list of sanctioned projects prepared by the Govt.
of India in June 1967( 21) stated that the sanctioned
diversion under the Kokak Canal was 1.4 T.M.C. and
mentioned the diversion under the Ghataprabha Project
separately. This statement overlooks the fact that the ayacut
under the Gokak Canal is now merged in the Ghataprabha
Left Bank Canal and that no separate provision for the
Gokak Canal is necessary.
(3) Srisailam Hydro-electric Project :—
Dispute.—Andhra Pradesh claims protection for the
annual evaporation loss of 33 T.M.C. of water under the
Srisailam Hydro-electric Project. Maharashtra and Mysore
contend that the project is not entitled to any protection.
Project.—The Srisailam Hydro-electric Project
comprises a high dam across the Krishna river and a
power house at the toe of the dam. The Power house
will have 4 generating units of 110 MW each with a
provision for adding 3 such units at a later stage. On the basis
of the ultimate release of 180 T.M.C. of water annually, the
power potential at Srisailam will be of the order of 134 339
MW at 100 per cent load factor or 224 MW at 60 per cent
load factor. The Srisailam Project being a hydro-electric
project for generating power without diverting water to
another watershed does not involve consumptive use of water
except for evaporation loss. ( 22 ) The area of the
 105

water spread at full reservoir level 885 will be 6,622 million loss of 17 T.M.C. under the Nagarjunasagar Project.
sq. ft. The annual evaporation loss will be 33 T.M.C. Maharashtra and Mysore contend that the protection
The reservoir will provide valuable carryover storage. should be limited to annual utilisation of 149.5 T.M.C. and
evaporation loss of 14 T.M.C. only.(23)
In November, 1959, the Andhra Pradesh Government
sent the project report to the Central Water and Power
Project.—The Nagarjunasagar Project comprises a 341
Commission for approval. On June 7, 1963, the Planning
gravity dam in the gorge portion and earth dam on flanks
Commission agreed to the commencement of preliminary
across the Krishna river near Nandikonda village in
works. Soon thereafter, the project was inaugurated. On the
Andhra Pradesh and two canals on the right and left
26th March, 1964, the Planning Commission sanctioned the
sides.
project estimated to cost Rs. 45.75 crores. On the 29th
August, 1964, the Andhra Pradesh Government granted ad-
ministrative sanction to the project. Construction of the Scope of the project.—The project is based on the joint
Project is in progress. Rupees 34.74 crores were spent on report prepared by Andhra and Hyderabad States in
the Project upto January 1971. 1954. The joint report( 24) indicated that the project was
capable of being executed in two phases and that the
Objection.—On the 17th May, 1960, the Mysore dam would be up to F.R.L. 525 in the first phase.
Government objected to the clearance of the Srisai-lam
Project until the question of allocation of the Krishna The irrigation benefits in the first phase shown at page 82
waters was finally settled. On the 3rd October, 1960, the of the Report were :—
340 Maharashtra Government also lodged a similar protest
with the Government of India. In January 1962, the Mysore
Government requested the Government of India to refer Lakh acres
the dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication. In June 1963,
the Maharashtra Government made a similar request to the 1 2
Government of India. In spite of these objections, the
Krishna Delta first crop . . . . 1.5
project was cleared by the Planning Commission in 1964.
Right Bank canal first crop . . . . 9.7
The project was taken in hand by the Andhra
Pradesh Government after September 1960 in spite of the Left Bank canal first crop . . . . 6.7
timely protests of the coriparian States. On a consideration Left Bank canal second crop . . 1.2
of all relevant factors, we are unable to give special .
protection to the project. TOTAL . . . . . 19.1
Conclusion.—The annual evaporation loss of 33
T.M.C. under the Srisailam Hydro-electric Project is not In the working table for the first phase at page 89
entitled to any priority over contemplated uses. Whether any of the report, no provision of water was made for
water should be allowed for this project on other grounds second crop irrigation (25) The irrigation benefits shown
342
will be considered else-, where. at page 89 were :—

(4) Nagarjunasagar Project:— Lakh acres

Dispute.—Andhra Pradesh claims protection for the 1 2
annual utilisation of 264 T.M.C. and evaporation
Krishna Delta first crop (now besides existing
10.5
1.5
lakh
Rightacres) . Left
Bank and . Bank. Canals. . . 18.5
TOTAL . . . . . 20.0
.

(23) MRDK VIII p. 64.

(24) APPK 1 pp. 82, 89.
(25) Report of the COPP Irrigation and Power Team on Nagarjunasagar, 1960, p. 2.
 106

The irrigation benefits in the first phase shown in the
revised estimate of October 1956 for Rs. 91.12 crores
were(26) :—
Lakh acres
1 2
Krishna Delta first crop (extra) . . . 1.50
.
Krishna Delta second crop . . . 1.50
Right Bank canal first crop . . . 9.70
Left Bank canal first crop . . . 6.70
Left Bank canal second crop . . . 1.20
. recommendations of the Khosla Committee and the
TOTAL . . . . . . 20.60
.
The COPP Team on Nagarjunasagar found that only
two-thirds of the first crop irrigation on Nagarjunasagar
canals envisaged in the first phase could be done with
F.R.L. 525. The Team recommended the completion of
the masonry dam to the final height of F.R.L. 590,
keeping the crest at 546 in the first phase and leaving
the installation of the gates in the second phase. They
343
found that with crest at 546, the first crop irrigation of
16.4 lakh acres in the Nagarjunasagar canals and 1.5
lakh acres of first crop and 1.25 lakh acres of second crop
in the Delta could be done fully.(27)
On the 22nd September, 1960, the Government of India
approved of the estimate of October 1956 as revised from
time to time with a slight modification. (28) The
sanctioned project provided for irrigation benefits as
shown in the revised estimate of October 1956. The note
annexed to the letter of the Planning Commission dated
the 13th June, 1969, stated (29):
"The sanctioned project provided for irrigation
on 17.90 lakh acres of 1st crop (16.4 lakh
acres under Nagarjunasagar Canals and 1.5
344 lakh acres in Delta) and 2.70 lakh acres of 2nd
crop (1.2 lakh acres on L.B.C. and 1.5 lakh acres
in Delta)."
The cost of the project increased to Rs. 139.53 crores
in the estimate of 1962 and Rs. 163.54 crores
in the estimate of 1969. The estimates incorporated the
changes recommended by the COPP Team including the
raising of the full reservoir level to R.L. 546. On the
13th June, 1969, the Government of India approved of
the revised estimate of cost amounting to Rs. 163.54 crores.
The revised project provides for irrigation of 11.74 lakh
acres on the Right Bank Canal and 8.80 lakh acres on
the Left Bank Canal. (30)
Construction with the approval of the Planning
Commission and the Government of India.—The joint
report of 1954 was prepared in pursuance of the
decision taken by the Planning Commission held in
December, 1952. In February 1955, the Planning
Commission agreed to include the project estimated to
cost Rs. 75.08 crores in the First Five Year Plan and
decided that a modified project report should be prepared. In
June 1955, the Government of India constituted the
Nagarjunasagar Control Board consisting of
representatives of the Governments of India, Andhra
345
and Hyderabad. In November 1955, the Planning
Commission sanctioned the commencement of preliminary
works. The project was inaugurated by Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru in December 1955. In January 1956, the
Government of India sanctioned loans for the
commencement of preliminary works. Work on the project
started in February 1956. Consequent on the
reorganisation of States in November 1956, the Project
vested in Andhra Pradesh exclusively, and the
Nagarjunasagar Control Board was reconstituted to consist of
representatives of the Government of India and Andhra
Pradesh. In March 1957, the Planning Commission
sanctioned the construction of cross drainage works for
higher discharges. In February 1958, the Central Water and
Power Commission prepared detailed specifications, sche-
dules and drawings on Nagarjunasagar dam and appurtenant
works. In July, 1960, the COPP Team on Nagarjunasagar
Project recommended changes in the design features of the
project. In September 1960, the Government of India
cleared the project estima-

(26) Report of the COPP Irrigation and Power Team on Nagarjunasagar Project 1960, pp. 3, 7, 118; APPK XVII p. 4,
Ann. I p. 3.
(27) Report of the COPP Irrigation and Power Team on Nagarjunasagar Project 1960, pp. 7-8, 17-18, 101-102; APDK
VIII p. 85.
(28) MRK II pp. 190-191.
(29) APDK VIII p. 85.
On the 20th December, 1958, the Nagarjunasagar Control Board proposed the redistribution of 1.5 lakh acres of
1st crop with in the accepted ayacut of Nagarjunasagar canals, but that proposal was not incorporated in the
sanctioned Nagarjunasagar" project of 1960. The estimate of October 1956 as revised from time to time and
sanctioned in 1960 made a provision of Rs. 150 lakhs for distributaries for the additional ayacut of 1.5 lakhs
acres in Krishna Delta; see Report of the COPP Irrigation and Power Team on Nagarjunasagar Project pp. 6, 129,
173-174, 183, 187; Letter of the Nagarjunasagar Control Board dated the 21st April, 1959, APDK X pp. 147,
154, 162, 167.
(30) APDK VIII pp. 83-110; APPK XVII pp. 6-9, 21-22.
 107
ted to cost Rs. 91.12 crores. The sanctioned Project was
included in the Second and Third Five Year Plans. In
June 1969, the Planning Commission cleared the
revised Nagarjunasagar Project estimated to cost Rs.
163.54 crores. (31)
346 Work on the dam has been completed. The right and
left canals have been partly completed. The project
commenced operation in 1967.
Utilisation of 264 T.M.C. of waters committed since 1956 :
Work on the Project commenced in February, 1956. The
declared object of the project was to utilise 263.6
T.M.C. of the Krishna waters annually for purposes of
irrigation. The design features of the project and the areas
proposed to be irrigated were changed during actual
execution, but there was no alteration in the quantum of
proposed utilisation. The working table at page 89 of the
1954 Report showed an annual withdrawal of 263.615
T.M.C. for Stage I of the project. In 1962, the report of the
Krishna Godavari Commission stated that the annual
diversion under the project would be 263.60 T.M.C. In
March 1963, the Union Minister for Power and Irrigation
declared in the Lok Sabha that 264 T.M.C. of the
Krishna flows would be required for the sanctioned
Nagarjunasagar Project. A note of the Planning
Commission dated the 5th July, 1963, stated that the
withdrawal under the Project Stage I would be 264 T.M.C.
The sanction letter of the Planning Com- mission dated the
13th June, 1969, declared that the project proposed the
347 withdrawal of 264 T.M.C. of the Krishna waters. Since
1956, the project was taken up and executed with the
fixed and definite purpose of utilising 264 T.M.C. of the
Krishna waters. The State of Mysore specifically admitted
in its rejoinder that the utilisation proposed in Stage I of the
project as originally envisaged and sanctioned by the Govern-
ment of India was 264 T.M.C.(32) We also find that before
September 1960, no objection to Stage I of the Project
was raised by the other States.
Maharashtra argument that committed utilisation as on
September 1960 was 163.5 T.M.C. : The COPP Team
found that only two-thirds of the first crop irrigation on
Nagarjunasagar canals provided in Stage I of the project
could be done with F.R.L. 525 and that the demand for
such irrigation would be 147.568 T.M.C. apart from
evaporation loss of 15.940 T.M.C. (33). Maharashtra
argued that, in the circumstances, the committed
utilisation with F.R.L. 525 sanctioned in 1960 was
163.5 T.M.C. only.
(31) APDK II, pp 63-75, 84-85, APDK I, 140, MRK II p 190; Second Five Year Plan p 362; Third Five Year
Plan p 413
(32) APPK I, p 89, Krishna Godavari Commission Report, p 241; KGCR Ann X pp. 11-13; APDK VIII, p 4,
MYK III p 36
(33) COPP Report on Nagarjunasagar Project 1960, pp 7-8, 14-15.
It is to be observed that the 1954 report proposed to
utilise 263.6 T.M.C. with F.R.L. 525 in Stage I of the
project. The proposal for F.R.L. 525 was based on the
unrealistic assumption that no new projects would be
undertaken by the upper states. It was because the full
irrigation envisaged in Stage I could not be done with
F.R.L. 525, the COPP Team recommended the raising of
F.R.L. to 546. This change in the internal design feature
of the project was necessary for the full utilisation of
263.6 T.M.C.
We are satisfied that since 1956 the committed 348
utilisation under the project is and has continued to be
264 T.M.C.
Raising of full reservoir level to 590 : The project report
of 1954 provided for the raising of the full reservoir level
to 590 in the final stage. The COPP Team recommended
the raising of the full reservoir level to 546 and
completion of the dam to the final height (F.R.L. 590)
leaving the installation of the crest gates, 44 feet in
height, to be done in the final stage. The raising of the
F.R.L. to + 590 was the distinctive feature of stage II. In
March 1963, the Union Minister for Irrigation and Power
declared that Stage II could be cleared after investigations on
diversion of Godavari supplies would be completed and
the available supplies would be known. In the sanction
letter of June 1969, the Planning Commission expressly
refused to sanction the installation of crest gates.
Nevertheless, the Andhra Pradesh Government installed crest
gates 44 feet in height over the spillway crest. Consequently,
the F.R.L. of the reservoir is now + 590 and at M.D.D.L.
510, the live storage capacity is 192 T.M.C. Maharashtra
and Mysore strongly objected to the installation of crest
gates.
However, for reasons to be given hereafter and
considering that Andhra Pradesh should have carryover
storage in the Nagarjunasagar dam we are permitting 349
Andhra Pradesh to store water by installing crest gates in
the Nagarjunasagar dam.
Evaporation loss : The annual evaporation loss of
Nagarjunasagar reservoir at F.R.L. 525 was said to be
12.77 T.M.C. in the 1954 Project Report, 14 T.M.C. in
a letter of the Planning Commission dated the 5th July,
1963, and 15.94 T.M.C. in the Report of the COPP Team
of 1960. The annual evaporation loss at F.R.L. 590 was
said to be 16.795 T.M.C. in
 108
the Project Report. ( 34 ) In view of the fact that Andhra
Pradesh is now permitted to raise the reservoir level to F.R.L.
590 by installing crest gates, we hold that an annual
evaporation loss of 17 T.M.C. should be allowed for the
Nagarjunasagar Project,
Irrigation of 1.5 lakh acres of first crop in the Delta : The
Nagarjunasagar Project sanctioned in 1960 envisaged the
development of 1.5 lakh acres of 1st crop in the Delta in
addition to 10.5 lakh acres of 1st crop in the Delta
existing in 1964. The annual withdrawal of 263.6 T.M.C.
under the project included the demand of 23.2 T.M.C. for
irrigation of the new 1.5 lakh acres of 1st crop in the
Delta. (35) The requirement of the existing 10.5 lakh acres of
1st crop in the Delta had to be met out of the free supplies
in the Krishna.
The scope of the Nagarjunasagar Project was
350
changed from time to time. The project as sanctioned by the
Planning Commission on the 13th June, 1969, provided for
withdrawal of 264 T.M.C. of the Krishna waters and for
irrigation of 20.54 lakh acres on Nagarjunasagar canals. The
sanction letter dated the 13th June, 1969(36) stated that the
revised Nagarjunasagar Project was found acceptable "subject
to the technical comments and suggestions of the Central
Water and Power Commission" and enclosed a copy of the
comments of C.W. & P.C. The enclosed note stated that
"This Project supplements irrigation of 1.5 lakh acres in the
Delta". Thus, even the revised Nagarjunasagar Project as
sanctioned on the 13th June, 1969 envisaged that the Project
would supplement irrigation of all newly developed 1st
crop area in the Delta to the extent of 1.5 lakh acres. It is
admitted by Andhra Pradesh that it will implement the
project as sanctioned in 1969. Andhra Pradesh argued
that any direction for changing the scope of the project re-
garding use of the water allowed for it in the Krishna Delta
would contravene section 108(2) of the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956. The question does not arise
as we do not propose to give such a direction.
(34)APPK I pp. 89, 93; APDK-VIII pp. 4, 6; APPK XVII p. 90; COPP Report on Nagarjunasagar Project
1960 p. 15.
(35) Evidence of Jaffer Ali, pp. 174-175.
(36) APDK VIII pp. 83, 84, 91.
(37) MRDK VIII p. 64.
(38) KGCR Ann. VIII, p. 10.
(39) APPK XVII pp. 36-38.
(40) C M.P. 16(75)/71-KWDT.
(41) APK. I p. 213.
(42) MRDK II, pp. 114, 117; MYDK I, p. 215.
Conclusion :
351
In allocating the waters of the river Krishna, the annual
utilisation of 264 T.M.C. and evaporation loss of 17
T.M.C. under the Nagarjunasagar Project of Andhra
Pradesh should be preferred to contemplated uses.
(5) Krishna Delta Canal System :
Dispute : Andhra Pradesh claims protection for the annual
utilisation of 214 T.M.C. and evaporation loss of 4 T.M.C.
under the Krishna Delta Canals. Maharashtra and Mysore
contend that the annual utilisation of 161 T.M.C. only
should be protected. (37 )
Project : The Krishna Delta canal system is in operation
since 1855. From time to time there were additions and
alterations to the system.(38 ) The headworks are located
at Vijayawada where the Krishna river flows through a gap
between low hills. Beyond this point, stretching on either side
of the river lies a wide alluvial plain known as the Krishna
delta. The original weir has been replaced by a barrage.
There are two main canals, one on each flank of the barrage.
The ( 39) Krishna Eastern Main Canal on the Vijayawada
side, with branch canals commands the eastern Delta. The
Krishna Western Main Canal on the Seethanagram side,
with branch canals commands the western Delta.
A number of new irrigation schemes in the Krishna Delta 352
were executed or came into operation since 1951-52. (40)
Andhra Pradesh's claim : Andhra Pradesh claims that the
committed annual utilisation in September 1960 under the
Krishna Delta system was 214 T.M.C. (41)
In a statement prepared by the Government of India in
1967, the sanctioned annual diversion of the Krishna Delta
system was said to be 214 T.M.C. (42) However, the
particulars of the sanction were not given.
 109

353 Annual diversions of water and areas irrigated: The ted by the Krishna Delta system were: (43)
annual diversions of water and the areas irriga-

Area irrigated by crops (in acres) Withdrawals in T M C

Year Kharif Rabi Total June to January to Total

December
May
1941-42 . . . . . 9,87,690 3,884 9,91,574 149.37 12.54 161.91
.
1942-43 . . . . . 9,97,060 9,413 10,06,473 154.56 20.83 174.39
.
1943-44 . . . . . 10,44,169 15,763 10,59,932 183.13 28.16 211.29
.1944-45 . . . . . 10,63,613 87,273 11,50,886 163.74 14.79 178.53
.
1945-46 . . . . . 10,80,916 21,285 11,02,201 164.86 9.46 174.32
.1946-47 . . . . . 10,96,250 31,900 11,28,150 185.82 19.27 205.09
.
1947-48 . . . . . 11,06,411 28,626 11,35,037 175.09 17.48 192.57
.1948-49 . . . . . 11,13,706 29,403 11,43,109 178.70 23.91 202.61
.1949-50 . . . . . 11,81,241 46,658 12,27,899 154.96 19.97 174. 93
.1950-51 . . . . . 12,16,254 37,416 12,53,670 177.71 15.00 192.71
.1951-52 . . . . . 11,81,851 45,816 12 27,667 177.01 9.13 186.14
.1952-53 . . . . . 10,84,529 30,839 11,15,368 161.33 6.66 167.99
.1953-54 . . . . . 11,08,079 45,325 11,53,404 167.11 35.54 202.65
.1954-55 . . . . . 11,76,377 81,809 12,58,186 155.54 49.38 204.92
.1955-56 . . . . . 11,65,732 1,08,362 12,74,094 160.97 47.47 208.44
.1956-57 . . . . . 11,82,748 1,04,430 12,87,178 147.38 56.45 203. 83
.1957-58 . . . . . 11,39,819 1,03,956 12,43,775 172.89 48.11 221.00
.1958-59 . . . . . 11,29,173 92,152 12,21,325 151.17 52.21 203.38
.1959-60 . . . . . 10,24,816 1,61,641 11,86,457 177.08 64.90 241.98
.1960-61 . . . . . 201.21 55.33 256.54
.
1961-62 . . . . . 11,28,972 1,33,763 12,62,735 195.39 53.46 248.85
.1962-63 . . . . . 11,07,267 1,31,848 12,39,115 162.61 56.80 219.41
.1963-64 . . . . . 11,35,817 1,64,368 13,09,185 181.33 43.98 225.31
.
1964-65 . . . . . 11,61,245 3,17,130 14,78,375 163.68 68.27 231.95
.
1965-66 . . . . . 11,53,454 1,87,725 13,41,179 173.79 39.09 212.88
.
1966-67 . . . . . 11,81,098 3,08,726 14,89,824 196.71 63.29 260.00
.
1967-68 . . . . . 11,83,463 4,83,950 16,67,413 191.73 92.91 284.64
.
1968-69 . . . . . 11,87,194 4,90,468 16,77,662 209.37 65.36 274.73

NOTE —Upto 1953-54, there were no perennial crops Since 1954-55 the area irrigated with perennial crops has been
included the area irrigated during the Kharif season
1941-42 to 1950-51 average area irrigated in Kharif 10,88,731, Rabi 31,162, Total 11,19,893 acres
1951-52 to 1959-60 (9 years) average area irrigated in Kharif 11,32,569, Rabi 86,037, Total 12,18,606 acres.
1961-62 to 1968-69 (8 years) average area irrigated in Kharif 11,54,814
Base period for 1st crop paddy is 180 days between June-July to November-December
See KGCR Ann VIII, p 12-13, 16, KGCR Ann IV, p 4-7, APDK VII, pp 1-7 APDK VI, pp 1-5

(43) MRDK XIII, Sheet XXXII The irrigated area shown above is exclusive of area under green manure which was
estimated to be 500,000 acres, see KGCR Ann VIII, p 11.
 110
354
Increase in second crop area since 1953-54 : The Tungabhadra
dam started functioning in July 1953. During 1953-54, the
question of utilising the waters stored in the Tungabhadra
reservoir until full development of irrigation under the
Tungabhadra Project canals was discussed and it was
decided that the surplus waters would be utilised for
temporary second crop cultivation in the Krishna Delta on
the understanding that such cultivation would not give rise
to any special claims and different blocks in the Delta would
be supplied with water in different years. (44) Pursuant to this
arrangement and with the concurrence of the Mysore
Government, water was released from the Tungabhadra dam
since 1953-54 for second crop cultivation in the Delta. The
area of second crop cultivation during rabi was 3,884 acres
in 1941-42, 30,839 acres in 1952-53, 161,641 acres in
1959-60 and 4,90,468 acres in 1968-69. The increase
in second crop area and withdrawal during rabi since 1953-
54 was rendered possible by the temporary releases from
the Tungabhadra dam. Andhra Pradesh has not acquired
any right to the continuance of the temporary release from the
Tungabhadra dam, or to special protection for the second
crop area brought under cultivation since 1953-54.
355
During the 10 year period from 1943-44 to 1952-53,
before the temporary releases from the Tungabhadra Dam
started, the average second crop area irrigated in rabi was
37,498 acres.
Increase in first crop area :
The average first crop area irrigated in Kharif was
10,88,731 acres during the 10 year period 1941-42 to
1950-51, 11,32,569 acres during the 9 year period 1951-52
to 1959-60, 11,54,814 acres during 8 year period 1961-62
to 1968-69.
Increase in withdrawals : The average diversion during the 10
year period 1951-52 to 1960-61 was 209.69 T.M.C.
against the average diversion of 186.84 T.M.C. during
the 10 year period 1941-42 to 1950-51.
In 1961, Andhra Pradesh Government announced that it
proposed to divert 214 T.M.C. annually. (45) The average
diversion during the 8 year period 1961-62 to 1968-69 was
244.72 T.M.C.
The annual diversions do not furnish a correct indication
of the actual utilisations for irrigation under
(44) SP III 189-190; MYDK XX pp. 4-9.
(45) KGCR Ann. VIII, pp. 12-13.
(46) KGCR Ann. VIII, pp. 14-15.
(47) This is claimed by Andhra Pradesh and assumed by Framji in his evidence pp. 543-544, 1262-63.
the Delta canals. It may be mentioned that for irrigation
of 11,13,706 acres in kharif and 29,403 acres in rabi
during 1948-49 the annual diversion was 202.61 T.M.C.,
while for irrigation of the larger area of 11,81,241 acres in 356
kharif and 46,658 acres in rabi during 1949-50 the annual
diversion was 174.93 T.M.C. only. During 1958-59 the
annual diversion was 203.38 T.M.C. for irrigation of
11,29,173 acres in kharif and 92,152 acres in rabi, while
for almost the same diversion during 1953-54 the area
irrigated was 11,08,079 acres in kharif and 45,325 acres
in rabi.
Committed utilisation as on September, 1960 : The project
requires water for (a) first crop irrigation (b) second
crop irrigation (c) irrigation of green manure and fodder
crops (d) navigation (e) water supply to towns (f) washing
of salinity from irrigated areas near the coast and tidal drains.
(46) There is evaporation loss of about 4 T.M.C. from the
pondage at the Krishna barrage. (47)
It is common case before us that the average first crop
area of 11,32,569 acres irrigated in kharif during 1951-52 to
1959-60 should be taken to be the first crop area irrigated
annually in the Delta by September 1960. Andhra Pradesh
is entitled to an allowance of water from the free supplies of
the Krishna to meet the requirement of 10.5 lakh acres of
first crop in the Delta. The Nandikonda Project report of
1954 shows that the reasonable requirement of 10.5 lakh
acres of first crop in the Delta was 161.9 T.M.C. of water.
357
By September, 1960, an extra 82,569 acres in addition to
10.5 lakh acres of first crop in the Delta existing in 1954
were developed. In 1968-69, the newly developed first
crop area in the Delta was 1.37 lakh acres.
We have already pointed out that the annual with-drawal
of 263.6 T.M.C. of water under the Nagar-junasagar Project
sanctioned in September 1960 included the demand of
23.2 T.M.C. of water for irrigation of new 1.5 lakh acres
of 1st crop in the Delta in addition to 10.5 lakh acres of 1st
crop existing in 1954. Even the revised Nagarjunasagar
Project sanctioned in June 1969 will supplement irrigation
of all newly developed area of 1st crop in the Delta to the
extent of 1.5 lakh acres. In these circumstances and on a
consideration of all relevant factors, we do
 111

not propose to make any separate allowance of water out
of the free supplies in the Krishna for the extra 82,659 acres
of 1st crop in the Delta developed by September 1960 or for
any other 1st crop area in the Delta developed since
September 1960.
The average second crop area irrigated in rabi for the
decade 1943-44 to 1952-53 was 37,498 acres. It is
common case that this area may be taken to be the
second crop area irrigated before the commencement of
temporary releases from Tungabhadra Dam. Andhra Pradesh
is not entitled to any special protection for the second crop
area in excess of 37,498 acres brought under cultivation
since 1953-54.
358
358 The COPP report on Nagarjunasagar Project(48) shows
that the demand 1.5 lakh acres of second crop in the
Krishna Delta was 23.3 T.M.C. On this basis, the annual
demand for 37,498 acres of second crop was 5.82 T.M.C.
Taken separately, green manure had a delta of 0.4 feet
and the requirement of 500,000 acres of green manure was
8.7 T.M.C. of water. (49) No separate data for the
requirement of navigation and water supply to towns etc.
are available. It appears that an allowance of 5.82 T.M.C.
of water may not be sufficient to meet the requirement of
37,498 acres of second crop, 5,00,000 acres of green
manure, navigation, water supply to towns and washing of
salinity during the rabi season.
On a rough estimate, an allowance of 15.3 T.M.C.
annually may be made for the reasonable requirement of
second crop, green manure, navigation, water supply and
washing of salinity etc. In addition, an allowance of 161.9
T.M.C. must be made for first crop irrigation.
In all, 177.20 T.M.C. of water on account of the
committed utilisation of the Krishna Delta canals as on
September 1960 besides annual pond loss of 4 T.M.C.
should be allowed out of the free supplies in the
Krishna.
359 Conclusion : In allocating the waters of the river Krishna,
the annual utilisation of 177.20 T.M.C. and pond loss of 4
T.M.C. under the Krishna Delta Canal
System of Andhra Pradesh should be preferred to
contemplated uses.
(6) Bhadra Reservoir Project :
Dispute : Mysore claims that the annual utilisation of
56.8 T.M.C. under the Bhadra Reservoir Project should be
protected. Maharashtra supports the claim. Andhra Pradesh
contends that the annual use of 46.6 T.M.C. should be
permitted. All the three States agree that annual
evaporation loss of 4.9 T.M.C. should be allowed. (50)
Project : The Bhadra Reservoir Project is a multipurpose
scheme comprising a storage reservoir across the river Bhadra
near Lakkavalli, right bank and left bank canals and power
houses. (51)
The object of the Madras-Mysore agreement of July 1944
was to enable the Mysore Government to undertake
construction of the Project. (52) In October/ November, 1946
the Mysore Government granted administrative sanction for
constructing the works. (53) The construction started in
April, 1947. The project commenced operation in 1957,
but the ayacut was fully developed later.
360
The ayacut originally proposed in 1946 was
1,80,000 acres. In 1961, the Mysore Government proposed
an ayacut of 2,41,550 acres. In 1969 the ayacut was
2,42,310 acres.(54) The cropping pattern was changed from
time to time.
Right to utilisation of 56.8 T.M.C.
The Madras-Mysore agreement of July, 1944 per-mitted
the Mysore Government to draw 57 T.M.C. for irrigation
and power purposes from the Bhadra Reservoir. (55) The
other riparian Governments were not bound by the
agreement but Hyderabad, Bombay and Sangli agreed to
raise no objection to the construction of the project. In 1946,
the Mysore Government sanctioned construction of the
project with the declared object of utilising 57 T.M.C.
annually. (56) At the inter-State conference of 1951, the
Mysore Government proposed to utilise 57 T.M.C. under the
Project. To this proposal, no objection was raised by the
other Governments. (57)

(48) Report of the Irrigation and Power Team on Nagarjunasagar Project (Committee on Plan Projects) 1960, p. 13, see
also Nandi-konda Project Report APPK I, p. 85.
(49) MRDK XIII, Sheet XXXIII; KGCR Ann. VIII, pp. 11, 14.
(50) MRDK VIII, p. 64.
(51) KGCR Ann. IX, pp. 74-75.
(52) APK II, pp. 168-174.
(53) MYDKXX, p. 1.
(54) KGCR Ann. IX, pp. 74, 78; MYPK VI, pp. 15, 17; MYK I, p.98.
(55) APK II, p. 168; MYDK II, p. 401; APDK V, p. 32.
(56) MYPK VI, p. 13.
(57) APDK I, p. 28; MRDK I, p. 118, 124.
1 M of I & P/73—16
 112
Before the Krishna Godavari Commission, (58) the
Mysore Government stated that the annual irrigation
requirement of the project was 56.75 T.M.C.
361 The list of sanctioned projects prepared by the Gov-
ernment of India in June, 1967 stated that the sanctioned
annual diversion under the Bhadra Reservoir Project was
56.8 T.M.C. (59)
We find that since 1946 the Mysore Government
has implemented the Project with the fixed and definite
purpose of utilising at least 56.8 T.M.C. annually.
Prima facie, Mysore has established that an annual
utilisation of 56.8 T.M.C. was committed as on
September, 1960.
Andhra Pradesh's contention.—Andhra Pradesh
argued that Mysore, having repudiated the agreement of
July, 1944 cannot claim protection for the agreed annual
utilisation of 56.8 T.M.C. According to Andhra
Pradesh, the annual water requirement of 2,42,310 acres
was 46.6 T.M.C. on the basis of the cropping pattern
proposed in 1946 and the duty proposed in 1961 and
that consequently, an annual use of 46.6 T.M.C. of
water only should be protected. We are unable to accept
this contention.
Regarding Tunga anicut also, Andhra Pradesh
advanced a similar argument. Subsequently, Andhra
Pradesh abandoned the argument and agreed that the
utilisation of 11.5 T.M.C. under the Tunga anicut
362 should be permitted as contemplated by the Madras-
Mysore agreement of July 1944.(60)
Mysore has established the right to the annual
utilisation of 56.8 T.M.C. independently of the agreement
of July 1944. Since 1946, Mysore took up the construction
of the project with the avowed object of utilising 56.8
T.M.C. without any protest from the other States, and
erected valuable permanent installations. Significant
sectors of its economy have become dependent upon the
uses of those waters. Those uses must now be regarded as
existing uses arising independently of an agreement and,
as such, entitled to protection.
(58) KGCR Ann. IX, p. 77.
(59) MYDK I, p. 216; MRDK II, p. 114.
(60) MRDK VIII, p. 62.
(61) MRDK VIII, p. 64.
(62) APK II, pp. 164-167.
(63) Tungabhadra Project Report (Hyderabad) pp. 8, 28, Ex. MYK 270.
(64) APK III, pp. 246, 251.
Conclusion.—In allocating the waters of the river
Krishna, the annual utilisation of 56.80 T.M.C. and
evaporation loss of 4.90 T.M.C. under the Bhadra
Reservoir Project of Mysore should be preferred to
contemplated uses.
(7) Tungabhadra Left Bank Low Level Canal:
Dispute.—Mysore claims that an annual utilisation of
92.3 T.M.C. under the Tungabhadra Left Bank Low
Level Canal should be protected. Maharashtra supports
the claim. Andhra Pradesh contends that the protection
should be limited to 56.0 T.M.C. In the agreed list of
projects(l), it is the common case of the parties that 363
one half of the evaporation loss from the Tungabhadra
reservoir to the extent of 9 T.M.C. annually is attributable
to the Left bank canal. (61)
Project.—The agreement of June 1944 enabled the
Hyderabad and Madras Governments to start the con-
struction of the Tungabhadra Project. Construction of the
Left Bank Low Level Canal was started in February,
1945 and completed in 1963. The Canal extends up to
mile 141 within Mysore St ate limits. There was a
proposal to extend the Canal beyond mile 141 to
Telengana areas in Gadwal and Alampur Taluks, but the
proposal was not implemented.
Water demand up to September 1960.—The agreement
of June 1944( 62 ) allowed Hyderabad to draw 65
T.M.C. of water from the Tungabhadra reservoir.
The Tungabhadra Project Report 1947 proposed a
cropping scheme and a demand table of ,92.25 T.M.C. of
water for 4,50,000 acres of first and second crops and
1,35,000 acres of fuel and pasture in the Karna-taka
areas up to mile 141.(63)
In 1 951 , t he H yd e r a ba d Go ve rn me nt
claimed 100 T.M.C. for the Canal and 35 T.M.C. for
364
the Canal extension. (64) The memorandum of agreement
of 1951 allowed 65 T.M.C. for the Canal and made a
lump sum allocation for projects under contemplation.
Thereafter in 1952, the Hyderabad
 113

Government proposed to utilise 65 T.M.C. for the Canal
and 20 to 35 T.M.C. for the Canal extension. (65)
In 1954, the Hyderabad Government finally
approved of a cropping scheme for 5,80,000 acres in the
Karnataka region up to mile 141.( 66) In 1956, the Chief
Engineer, Tungabhadra Project, prepared a demand table of
82.007 T.M.C. covering the water requirements of the
approved cropping scheme. It was decided that more water
would be utilised in the Telengana region in case of
extension of the Canal beyond mile 141.(67)
Since 1956 up to September 1960, the use of 82 T.M.C.
was considered sufficient for meeting the requirement of the
approved cropping scheme for 5,80,000 acres in the
Karnataka region to be irrigated from the Tungabhadra Left
Bank Low Level Canal. We think that the annual
utilisation of 82 T.M.C. of water under the Canal was
committed as on September, 1960.
We are unable to accept Andhra Pradesh's contention that
the use of 56 T.M.C. was sufficient for the requirement of the
canal.
365 Subsequent increase in water demand.—In 1961, Mysore
proposed to utilise 92.25 T.M.C. for irrigating 5,80,000
acres.(68) Recently Mysore proposed to utilise 111 T.M.C.
for irrigating 6,55,000 acres.(69)
The list of sanctioned projects prepared by the
Government of India in June, 1967 stated that the sanctioned
annual diversion under the Tungabhadra Project (Mysore)
was 111.3 T.M.C.( 70) However, it was not stated by whom
and when the sanction was given.
Tungabhadra Project Left Bank High Level Canal.— Some
water is required for the Tungabhadra Project Left Bank
High Level Canal. So far the highest annual utilisation
for the Left Bank High Level Canal was 0.636 T.M.C. in
1964-65.(71) Mysore desires that the water allowance for
the Left Bank Low Level Canal should cover the
requirement of the Left Bank High Level Canal. An
allowance of 1 T.M.C. should be sufficient for the High
Level Canal.
Conclusion.—In allocating the waters of the river
Krishna, the annual utilisation of 83 T.M.C. an evaporation
loss of 9 T.M.C. under the Tungabhadra Project Left
Bank Low Level Canal (including the Left Bank High
Level Canal) of Mysore should be preferred to contemplated
uses.
(8) Vajayanagar Channels of Mysore : 366
Dispute.—Mysore claims that an annual utilisation of
13.7 T.M.C. under the Mysore Vijayanagar Channels
should be protected. Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra
contended that the utilisation under the Channels ought not
to be separately provided for as they have been taken into
account in fixing the gross utilisation under minor irrigation.
(72)
Irrigation Schemes.—Several irrigation schemes,
compendiously known as Vijayanagar or Pre-Moghul
Channels were constructed by the Vijayanagar kings during
1509 A.D. to 1560 A.D.(73) Each scheme consisted of an
anicut and an irrigation channel. One of the schemes viz.,
Rampur Channel is situated in Andhra Pradesh.(74) The
requirement of Rampur Channel has been provided for
under minor irrigation and is not the subject-matter of the
present discussion. The names and location of the schemes
situated in Mysore are shown in the following table.(75)

(65) APPK X pp. 14, 16.

(66) APDK X p. 134; SP III p. 95.
(67) SP III pp. 95-97.
(68) KGCR Ann. IX pp. 20, 22.
(69) MYPK VIII pp. 13-15, 29.
(70) MYDK I p. 216; MRDK I pp. 114, 119.
(71) MYDK X pp. 3-11.
(72) MRDK VIII p. 65.
(73) MYPK VI, p. 71; H. C. Hart, New India's Rivers, p. 44.
(74) SP IV p. 7.
(75) MYPK VI pp. 70, 74. See also KGCR Ann. VIII pp. 140, 142.
 114
367 Sl. Name of Channel Name of Weir Location of weir — Remarks
No.
Name of Stream Distance downstream
of
Tungabhadra Dam in
miles
1 2 3 4 5 6
Bellary District (on right side of
river)
Submerged in Channel takes off
Tungabhadra directly from
1. Basavanna . . . . Vallabhapur reservoir Tungabhadra dam on
Do. right side.
Do.
2. Raya ................................
3. Bella Hosakote
Hosur Tungabhadra 1-1/2
Channel utilises
4. Kalaghatta . . . . Drainage channel Halla 5 seepage from higher
channels
5. Turtha .............................. Turtha Tungabhadra 10
6. Ramsagar . . . . Ramsagar Tungabhadra 18
7. Kampli . . . . Kampli Tungabhadra 19
8. Belagoduhal Drainage channel Halla 22 Channel utilises
seepage from higher
channels.
9. Sirugappa . . . . Sirugappa Tungabhadra 50 Consists of 7 bits.
368
10. Desnur . . . . Desnur Tungabhadra 50
Raichur District (on left side of
river) Submerged in Channel takes off
11. Koregal Koregal Tungabhadra directly from
reservoir 1-1/2 Tungabhadra Left
Bank Canal.
12. Hulgi ............................... Hulgi Tungabhadra
13. Shivapur . . . . Shivapur Do. 5
14. Anegundi . . . . Sanapur Do. 10
15. Upper Gangawati Upper Gangawati Do. 17
16. Lower Gangawati Lower Gangawati Do. 19
17. Bichal .............................. Bichal Do. 86
18. Bennur (In ruins)
369
Utilisation under Vijayanagar channels have not been
taken into account under minor irrigation : In the was :— (79)
pleadings (76) and the agreed list of projects ( 77) 1951-52 52-53 53-54 54-55 55-56 56-57 57-58
Mysore did not treat Vijayanagar Channels as minor
irrigation projects, though most of the channels taken 5.71 5.71 5.71 5.71 5.71 5.71 5.71
separately might be using less than 1 T.M.C. of water 58-59 59-60 60-61 61-62 62-63 63-64 64-65
annually. We are satisfied that the utilisations under
the Vijayanagar Channels have not been taken into 5.71 5.71 5.71 9.64 9.64 9.64 9.64
account in fixing the gross utilisations under minor 65-66 66-67 67-68 68-69
irrigation. This fact is now conceded by learned
9.64 9.64 9.64 9.64
Counsel for Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. (78)
Thus, the annual utilisation committed as on September 1960
Water utilisation : The annual gross utilisation in was 5.71 T.M.C.
T.M.C. for the Vijayanagar Channels in Mysore Conclusion : In allocating the waters of the river
Krishna, the annual utilisation of 5.71 T.M.C. for
the Vijayanagar Channels of Mysore should be preferred
to contemplated uses.

(76) MYK I p. 98.

(77) MRDK VIII p. 65.
(78) See Minutes of Proceedings of the Tribunal on the 28th March. 1973.
(79) MRDK VIII pp. 13-14.
 115
370
(9) Rajolibunda Diversion Scheme :
Scheme.—The Rajolibunda Diversion Scheme comprises
an anicut across the Tungabhadra river near Rajolibunda
village in Raichur District and a left bank canal about 89
miles long. The canal is lined and partly perennial and
partly two seasonal. (80) The Hyderabad Government started
construction of the project.
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and consequential
arrangements.—Upon the reorganisation of States in 1956,
the headworks and the initial 26/27 miles of the canal with
an ayacut of 5,900 acres fell within Mysore State and the
remaining portion of the canal with an ayacut of 87.000
acres fell within Andhra Pradesh. (81)
In October 1959, the Chief Engineers of Mysore and
Andhra Pradesh agreed on a full supply discharge of 850
cusecs out of which 770 cusecs would be available at the
Mysore-Andhra Pradesh border. (82) The two States
agreed that the annual utilisation under the project in
Mysore and Andhra Pradesh would be 1.2 T. M.C. and
15.9 T.M.C. respectively. (83) On January 25, 1971,
Counsel for the two states made the following joint statement
before the Tribunal :—
"The States of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh state
that the benefits of utilisations under the
371 existing Rajolibunda Diversion Scheme are
shared between the two States as mentioned
herein below :—
Mysore 1.2 T.M.C.
Andhra Pradesh 15.9 T.M.C."
Dispute.—The project report contemplated that the
Project's requirement of 17 T.M.C. would be met partly
from 6.3 T.M.C of return flow from irrigation under the
Tungabhadra Project, and partly from the flow below
Tungabhadra dam.(84) Maharashtra and Mysore contended
that if return flow from irrigation is not taken into
account in allocating the Krishna waters the utilisation of
10.8 T.M.C. only under the Project should be protected,
Mysore and Andhra Pradesh getting 0.80 T.M.C. and 10
T.M.C. respectively. (85) Andhra Pradesh disputed the con-
tention.
(80) KGCR Ann. IX, p. 27; MYPK X p. 5.
(81) SP II p. 132; KGCR Ann. IX, p. 27.
(82) SP III p. 103.
(83) SP III p. 132.
(84) APPK XVI pp. 1, 2.
(85) MRDK VIII p. 65.
(86) MRDK VIII p. 65.
(87) KGCR Ann. VIII pp. 17, 21; APPK XVII p. 23.
(88) KGCR Ann. VIII pp. 17, 18; APPK XVII pp. 23, 24; SP III p. 14; APPK II pp. 11-12.
(89) KGCR Ann. VIII, p. 19.
M of I & P/73—17
Conclusion.—We think that the requirement of the
Project can be met fully from the intermediate yield below
Tungabhadra dam and regulated releases from the dam.
Moreover, in allocating the Krishna waters we have, as far
as possible, taken into account the return flow from
irrigation.
We hol d that in allocating the waters of the river
Krishna, the annual utilisation of 1.2 T.M.C. by Mysore 372
and 15.9 T.M.C. by Andhra Pradesh under the
Rajolibunda Diversion Scheme should be preferred to
contemplated uses.
(10) Kurnool-Cuddapah Canal:
Dispute.—Andhra Pradesh claims protection for an
annual utilisation of 69.4 T.M.C. under the Kurnool-
Cuddapah Canal. Mysore contends that the protec-tion
should be limited to an annual utilisation of 19 T.M.C.
only. Maharashtra says that the use of 20 T.M.C. only
should be protected.(86)
Scheme.—The K. C. Canal scheme comprises an anicut
across the Tungabhadra river at Sunkesala and a right
bank canal. Part of the main canal is lined. (87) The
canal serves chronically drought affected areas in Kurnool,
Mahboobnagar and Cuddapah districts. It provides water
supply to Kurnool and
Nandyal and some navigation facilities.
•
The K.C. Canal is one of the oldest irrigation works
on the Tungabhadra. It is in operation since 1866.
The designed capacity of the canal was 3,000 cusecs.
The canal had a large command area and an ayacut of
1,96,227 acres was envisaged. The design, construction and
working of the canal disclosed serious defects. Due to
damage to the anicut, lowering of the crest and general 373
deterioration, the capacity was greatly reduced and the
ayacut shrank to 1,03,000 acres. (88)
During 1940-41 to 1950-51, the average irrigated area
was 97,878 acres and the average annual utili-sation was
33.02 T.M.C.(89) At the inter-State conference of July
1951, Madras stated that the area
 116

irrigated annually was 75,000 acres first crop and 10,000 1 2

acres second crop. The C.W. & P.C. technical note
prepared for the conference showed an annual Single wet Abi . . . . 1,26000
utilisation of 10 T.M.C. only. (90) .Single dry . . . . 1,28,000
Double wet . . . . 10,000
The river supplies were used mainly for irrigation of .
Sugarcane . . . . . 14,000
dry crops in year of deficient rainfall. A large area of .
Cholam was watered and the duty allowed for was 120 2,78,000
acres per cusec. For paddy, the working duty was about
30 to 45 acres per cusec. (91)
Out of the ayacut of 2,78,000 acres, only 45,000 acres 375
Remodelling.—The Khosla Committee (Technical is within the Krishna drainage basin; the remaining 2,33,000
Committee for optimum utilisation of Krishna and Godavari acres lie in Pennar valley.(98)
Waters) recommended that the K. C. Canal should be
remodelled for a discharge of 6,000 cusecs to feed its own In 1961, the Andhra Pradesh Government proposed the
requirement and that of several other canals. The Committee following cropping pattern :—(99)
was of the view that the K. C. Canal required a discharge of
1,940 cusecs for its ayacut of 1.94 lakh acres. (92) Delta at
Cropped Percentage
374 canal
However, the Andhra Government decided to re-model Crop area in of cropped
head in
the Canal for a discharge of 3,000 cusecs with a view to acres area
feet
irrigate annually 1,96,227 acres, half paddy and half other 1 2 3 4
crops. (93)
Kharif paddy 1,36,000 47.2 4.4
The remodelling was taken up in 1955 and completed in
1960-61 at a cost of Rs. 7.09 Crores. (94) The Central Kharif other crops 64,000 22.2 1.5
Government granted loan assistance during the Second Rabi Paddy 10,000 3.5 6.1
Five Year Plan. ( 95 ) The Canal was shown as Rabi other crops 64,000 22.2 1.5
continuing scheme in the Third Five Year Plan. (96)
Perennial (Sugarcane) 14,000 4.9 7.4
Ayacut and cropping pattern.—In March 1960, the
Andhra Pradesh Government approved of the localisation 2,88,000 100
of ayacut and the following crop pattern for an area of
2,78,000 acres :—(97) Annual withdrawals and irrigated areas.—The annual 376
withdrawals and areas irrigated under the K. C. Canal were
as follows :—(100)
Crop Area in
Acres

Year Annual diver- Area irrigated Perennial Total

sion in. annually in acres
T.M.C.
Kharif Rabi
1 2 3 4 5 6
1951-52 . . . . . 33.69 82,446 14,696 97,142
.1952-53 . . . . . 33.43 85,560 13,375 98,935
1953-54 . . . . . 41.70 91,284 17,717 1,09,001
1954-55 . . . . . 29.32 1,00,752 11,379 1,12,131
1955-56 . . . . . 23.92 99,689 7,733 1,07,422
.

(90) APDK IV p. 31; MRDK I p. 117.

(91) W. M. Ellis, College of Engineering Manual 1955 Ed. pp. 1, 7; Kistna-Pennar Project (1951-Scheme) APPK II, pp. 11-12, 60-6l.
(92) Report of the Technical Committee for Optimum Utilisation of Krishna and Godavari waters, pp. 49, 53, 55-58, 85, 99-101.
(93) APDK VIII pp. 21, 26; KGCR Ann. VIII pp. 17, 18; APPK XVII, p. 24.
(94) CMP. 16(75)/71-KWDT, Ex. APK 430.
(95) APDK X pp. 144-145.
(96) Third Five Year Plan p. 413.
(97) APDK X pp. 42-44.
(98) KGCR Ann. VIII p. 21.
(99) KGCR Ann. VIII p. 20.
(100) MRDK XIII, Sheet XXXIV.
 117

1 2 3 4 5 6
1956-57 . . . . . . 30.63 95,974 6,264 1,02,238
.
1957-58 . . . . . . 38.47 1,05,522 12,897 1,18,419
.1958-59 . . . . . . 40.56 1,27,620 21,521 1,49,141
.1959-60 . . . . . . 39.53 1,25,471 10,688 1,36,139
.1960-61 . . . . . . 60.98 1,27,620 21,521 1,49,141
.1961-62 . . . . . . 54.56 1,52,785 35,723 1,88,508
.1962-63 . . . . . . 60 53 1,44,435 44,527 1,88,962
.1963-64 . . . . . . 66.33 1,55,183 52,487 2,07,670
.1964-65 . . . . . . 60.41 1,64,668 67,311 2,31,979
.1965-66 . . . . . . 67.28 1,60,871 62,805 2,23,676
.1966-67 . . . . . . 68.45 1,43,242 68,689 2,11,931
1967-68 . . . . . . 72.68 1,51,364 16,0931,05,287 2,72,744
1968-69 . . . . . . 83.23 1,56,591 1,09,254
17,760 2,83,605
.
See KGCR Ann. IV pp. 282-84, MRDK VIII pp. 21-22, APDK VII pp. 12-19, APDK VI pp. 8-11, APDK II, pp. 60-
62, SP III pp. 171-172.
There is a foot note at page 39 of KGCR Ann. IV as under for year 1960-61 :—
"Not considered for calculating the average, as the canal was also used for escaping river supplies in view of repair
work to the anicut."

377
Larger withdrawal during rabi since 1953-54 due to
release from Tungabhadra dam.—Increased withdrawals
during rabi since 1953-54 became possible because of
temporary releases from the Tungabhadra dam for the
benefit of the second crop cultivation in the Krishna
Delta. The Tungabhadra dam started functioning in July,
1953. Releases were made from the Tungabhadra dam
since 1953-54 on the clear understanding that they would
not give rise to any special right. ( 101) Due to such
releases, there were large increases in the inflow at
Sunkesula anicut during the rabi season, January to May,
from 1953-54 to 1968-69. (102)
The withdrawals by K. C. Canal during the rabi
season, January to May, which were 4.62 T.M.C. in 1952-
53 increased to 31.19 T.M.C. in 1968-69.(103) The
increased withdrawals during rabi since 1953-54 could not
be made unless there were larger inflows at Sunkesula
anicut on account of the temporary re-
leases from the Tungabhadra dam. In view of the
larger withdrawals, the area irrigated during the rabi
Season by the K.C. Canal increased from 13,375 in
1952-53 to 1.09.254 acres in 1968-69.
Committed utilisation of K.C. Canal as on September 378
1960.—Before the Krishna Godavari Commission, the
Andhra Pradesh Government proposed the annual
utilisation of 39.87 T.M.C. for irrigating 2,78,000
acres. The monthly demands were June 5.81, July
5.97, August 6.07, September 6.60. October 6.50,
November 1.27, December 1.88, January 1.36, February
1.35, March 1.45, April 0.93, May 0.68 : Total 39.87
T.M.C.(104)
The list of sanctioned projects prepared by the Gov-
ernment of India in June 1963 stated that the annual
sanctioned diversion under the K.C. Canal was 39.9.
T.M.C. (105)

(101) SP III, pp. 189-192.

(102) KGCR Ann. II, p. 89; APDK-VI, pp. 8-11.
(103) KGCR Ann. IV, p. 39; APDK VI, p. 11.
(104) KGCR Ann. VIII, p. 19.
(105) MYDK I p. 215.
1 M of I & P/73—18
 118

Andhra Pradesh Government admits that the committed For all these reasons we hold that the annual withdrawals
utilisation as on September 1960 was 39.0 T.M.C.(106) in excess of 39.9 T.M.C. under the K.C. Canal should not
receive protection.

Andhra Pradesh's claim. — Andhra Pradesh claims
protection for the annual utilisation of 69.9 T.M.C. as
shown below : — (107)
For K. C. Canal committed as on
39.9
September, T.M.C.
1960improvements
For . . to. K. C. .Canal .
Committed after September, 1960 . 29.5
. . T.M.C.
69.4
T.M.C.
Andhra Pradesh's claim for protection of excess
withdrawals since September 1960 is rejected.—They
committed utilisation as on September 1960 was 39.9
T.M. C. only.
379
In 1961. Andhra Pradesh Government admitted that
the annual utilisation of 39.9 T.M.C. would be sufficient to
meet the requirements of an ayacut of 2,78,000 acres. It is
not shown to our satisfaction that for irrigating the same
area, the annual utilisation of 69.4 T.M.C. is necessary.
The annual diversions for the K.C. Kanal do not furnish a
correct estimate for the actual water supplied to the fields.
The diversions by the K.C. Canal have been relatively high
when compared with the areas irrigated, largely because there
was considerable seepage and wastage from the canal. (108)
With more economical management, the waste can be
avoided. The earlier proposals show that efficient irrigation is
possible with a higher duty of water. Avoidable waste is a
relevant factor in determining whether the excess withdrawals
should be given a preferred status in equitable
apportionment.
The Khosla Committee recommended the utilisation of
29.20 T.M.C. under the K.C. Canal, and the Andhra
Pradesh Government agreed t o the proposal. (109)
The ayacut under the Canal was then 1.94 lakh acres. (110)
380
On this basis also, the utilisation for an ayacut of
2,78,000 acres works out to
(29.2 X 270) / 194 = 40.06 T.M.C.
Mysore argument.—Mysore argued that in view of the
fact that the requirement of the K.C. Canal when remodelled
to 3,000 cusecs capacity would be 29.2 T.M.C. and in view
of the finding of the Khosla Committee that the canal's own
requirement was 1940 cusecs, the utilisation of the canal
works out to about
19 T.M.C. We are unable to accept this contention.
As already stated, the Khosla Committee recommen
ded the utilisation of 29.20 T.M.C. by the K.C. Canal
for an ayacut of 1.94 lakh acres, and on this basis the
utilisation for an ayacut of 2.78 lakh acres works out
to 40.06 T.M.C.
Maharashtra argument.—Maharahstra argued that for an
average ayacut of 97,778 acres during 1941-42 to 1951-
52(111) an utilisation of 10 T.M.C. was considered sufficient
by the C.W.&P.C.,(112) and, therefore, for an ayacut of
1,96,227 acres, the canal should
receive protection for the use of (10 x 1,96,277) /
97,778 or 20 T.M.C. only. But we find that before 381
the remodelling, the canal was not functioning
efficiently because of reduction in canal capacity and
general deterioration of the canal condition and the
actual withdrawals during 1941-42 to 1951-52 do not
furnish a correct estimate of the requirement of the
ayacut under the canal.
Conclusion.—The annual utilisation of 39.9 T.M.C.
committed as on September 1960 is necessary and
sufficient for irrigating 2,78,000 acres under the remodelled
K. C. Canal.
We hold that in allocating the waters of the river Krishna,
the annual utilisation of 39.90 T.M.C. under the K.C. Canal
should be preferred to contemplated uses.
Minor irrigation works using less than 1 T.M.C. annually
:
Agreements.—On the 26th August, 1971, the
parties filed agreed statements giving minor irrigation
particulars in respect of areas irrigated in the Krishna

(106) APK I pp. 52, 123.

(107) APK I pp. 123-124.
(108) KGCR Ann., VIII, p. 21.
(109) APDK VIII p. 26.
(110) Report of the Technical Committee (Khosla Committee) on the optimum utilisation of the Krishna and Godavari
waters p. 55
(111) KGCR Ann. VIII p.22
(112) MRDK I p. 117.
 119

basin in Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh and the
average gross utilisation computed on the basis of average
irrigated areas and agreed average duties for the periods
1941-42 to 1950-51, 1951-52 to 1960-61 and 1960-61 to
1966-67.(113)
On the 27th and 30th August, 1971, the parties filed
382 agreed supplementary statements showing that the figures
of minor irrigation in the earlier statement did not include
certain minor irrigation works and irrigation from wells. (114)
On the 1st September, 1971, the parties filed another
agreed supplementary statement giving basinwise
irrigated area and utilisation under minor irrigation
works in Krishna basin in the three States.(115)
On the 4th April, 1973, the parties filed an agreed
statement that the figures of average utilisation under minor
irrigation works included evaporation losses. Water spread
of tanks is inordinately large as compared with the
corresponding ayacut with the result that losses by
evaporation are as large as supplies diverted for irrigation
from these works. (116)
Utilisation of water under minor irrigation works upto
1960-61.—The sub-basinwise average area irrigated and
utilisation under minor irrigation works in Krishna basin in
Maharashtra State for the decade 1951-52 to 1960-61 are 383
given below :—

Sub-basin
Sr. Area irrigated in Acres Utilisation in Mcft.
No
. 1st Crop 2nd Crop Total 1st Crop 2nd Crop Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. K-l . . . . . . . 64,175 9,106 73,281 10,406 728 11,134

2. K-2 . . . . . . . 896 177 1,073 112 14 126

3. K-3 . . . . . . . 5,293 125 5,418 1,018 10 1,028
4. K-5 . . . . . . . 33,555 7,277 40,832 3,661 584 4,245
5. K-6 . . . . . . . 764 116 880 99 9 108

TOTAL . . . . . . 1,04,683 16,801 1,21,484 15,296 1,345 16,641

Our attention was drawn to the following projects of

Maharashtra using less than 1 T.M.C. of water annually.
1. 2 3 4

Sr. Sub- Name of project Utilisation in 5. K-5 Chandani project . . . 0.9

No basin T.M.C. .
6. K-6 Harni project . . . . 0.6
. .
1 2 3 4 TOTAL . . . . . 4.1
.
1. K-l Nehr Tank . . . . 0.5
Learned Advocate General of Maharashtra stated that
2. K-5 Budihal tank 0.9
he would be asking for allocation of waters in respect of
3. K-5 .Mehkari
. project
. . 0.7 these six projects. As Maharashtra will get allocation of
4 K-5 Kada project 0.5 waters for these six projects, he is not asking for any special
. . . . protection or preference over contemplated users regarding
these projects.

(113) MRDK VIII pp. 25-27.

(114) MRDK VIII pp. 58-60, 68A.
(115) MRDK VIII pp. 69-79.
(116) Krishna Godavari Commission Report, pp. 166-167; COPP Report on minor Irrigation Works (Mysore State),
pp. 7-8.
 120
384
The sub-basin-wise average area irrigated and utilisation under minor irrigation works in Krishna basin in Mysore
State for the decade 1951-52 to 1960-61 are given below :—

Sl. Sub-
No. basin Area irrigated in acres Utilisation in Mcft.
1st 2nd Tota 1st 2nd Total
Crop Crop l Crop Crop

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. K-l 1,823 176 1,999 161 20 181
2. K-2 13,733 879 14,612 2,354 112 2,466
3. K-3 10,330 1,016 11,346 913 119 1,032
4. K-4 51,131 1,224 52,355 3,904 136 4,040
5. K-5 156 20 176 13 2 15
6. K-6 20,743 579 21,322 5,788 181 5,969
7. K-7 2,431 28 2,459 678 11 689
8. K-8 3,06,568 10,521 3,17,08 45,427 2,510 47,937
9. K-9 1,11,871 9,886 9
1,21,75 26,618 3,251 29,869
7
5,18,786 24,329 5,43,11 85,856 6,342 92,198
5

Sl. Utilisation in M.C. ft. 1 2 3 4 5

The
No above figures do not include the following
Sub-basin 3. K- 913 119 1,032
utilisations.
. I Crop II Crop Total 3
Sub- Name of Scheme Utilisation 4. K- 4,434 136 4,570
1 2 3 4 5 4
basin in T.M.C. 5. K- 13 2 15
1. K-l 161 20 181 5
6. K- 6,288 181 6,469
2. 1 K-2 22,354 112 32,466
6
7. K- 678 11 689
K-4 Kolchi weir . . . . . 0.53 7
K-6 .
Hathikoni . . . . . 0.50 8. K-8 46,527 2,510 49,037
K-8 Jambad Halla . . . . 0.70
K-8 Kanakanala . . . . . 0.40 9. K-9 26,618 3,251 29,869
.
TOTAL 87,986 6,342 94,328
385 Adding the above utilisations, the sub-basinwise utilisation
under minor irrigation works in Krishna basin in Mysore
The utilisation under Chitwadgi and Harinala
State for the decade 1951-52 to 1960-61 was as follows
Schemes are not included in the above figures for the decade
:—
1951-52 to 1960-61, as the construction of those schemes
were started subsequently. Vijayanagar channels of Mysore
are not included under minor irrigation works.

386 The sub-basinwise average area irrigated and utilisation under minor irrigation works in Krishna Basin in Andhra
Pradesh for the decade 1951-52 to 1960-61 are given below:—

Sl. Sub-basin Area irrigated in acres Utilisation in T.M.C.

N
I Crop II Crop Total I Crop II Crop Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. K-6 19,986 2,036 22,028 3.000 0.509 3.509
2. K-7 2,34,899 37,500 2,72,399 35.598 9.422 45.020
3. K-8 29,897 3,538 33,435 5.446 1.009 6.455
4. K-9 24,725 8,755 33,480 4.945 2 627 7.572
5. K-10 1,05,056 20,328 1,25,384 15.758 5.082 20.840
6. K-11 37,416 6,138 43,554 5.613 1.533 7.146
7. K-12 1,50,511 12,554 1,63,065 22.578 3.131 25.709
TOTAL in Andhra Pradesh 6,02,490 90,849 6,93,345 92.938 23.313 116.251
 121

387 We think that the committed utilisation for both first MAHARASHTRA
and second crops as on September 1960 should be
protected. All utilisation for first and second crops have been Sub- Project Water
taken into account in fixing the dependable flow of the basin utilisation
Krishna. The fact that the utilisation for second crop is including T.M.C
In evapora-
dependent on uncertain north-east monsoon rainfall and is .
tion losses
more variable than the utilisation for first crop is not a
sufficient ground for refusing protection to the utilisation 1 2 3 4
for second crop. K-l . . . . . 186.23
Krishna canal ex Khodsi Weir 2.70
Koyna Hydro-Electric . 74.80
It is common case before us that the average utilisation .
Warna . . . . 47.70
under minor irrigation works for the decade 1951-52 to Tulshi . . . . 2.60
1960-61 should be taken to be the utilisation under those Radhanagri . 11.00
works as on September 1960. Krishna . . . . 36.30
Minor Irrigation . . 11.13
.
Conclusion.—We hold that in allocating the waters of 186.23
the river Krishna, the following sub-basinwise annual K-2 . . . . . 0.13
utilisation under minor irrigation works, using less than 1 .Minor Irrigation . . .13
T.M.C. of water annually and committed as on September K-3 . . . . . 1.03
1960 should be preferred to contemplated uses. .
Minor Irrigation 1.03
K-5 . . . . . 250.65
388 .Mutha System ex 23.50
Tata Hydel Works 45.00
Utilisation in T.M.C. Ghod . . . 10.40
Kukadi . . . 20.10
Sl. Sub-basin Maha- Mysore Andhra Total Visapur Tank . . 0.50
No. rashtra Pradesh Bhima . . . 90.20
Nira Canal System 34.60
1 Vir Dam . . . 14.70
3 4 5 6 Mhaswad . . . 2.20
2
1. K-l 11.13 11.31 Ashti Tank . . . 0.70
. .18 Mangi Tank . . . 1.10
2. K-2 .13 2.60 EkrukTank . . . 1.80
.3. K-3 2.47
1.03 2.06 Khasapur Tank . . 1.30
Sholapur city Water Supply 0.30
.
4. K-4 1.03 4.57 4.57 Minor Irrigation . . 4.25
.5. K-5 4.25 4.27 .
. .02 250.65
6. K-6 . .11 3.51 10.09
6.47 K-6 . . . . . 1.61
7. K-7 .69 45.02 45.71
.
Kurnoor . . . 1.50
.8. K-8 49.04 6.46 55.50 Minor Irrigation . . .11
.
9. K-9 29.87 7.57 37.44 .
.10. 1.61
K-10 20.84 20.84
.11. TOTA . . . . . 439.65
K-ll 7.15 7.15
.
.12. K-12 25.71
25.71 390
16.65 116.26 227.25 MYSORE
94.34
Sub- Project Water
389 basin utilisation
Final conclusion under Issue 11(3).—In allocating waters including T.M.C:
of the river Krishna, the following utilisations (including In evapora-
evaporation losses) of water of the Krishna river system by tion losses
the three States should be preferred to contemplated uses 1 2 3 4
:—
K-l . . . . . .18
.
Minor Irrigation . . .18
.
 122
391

ANDHRA PRADESH
1 2 3 4 Water
K-2 . . . . . 105.47 utilisatio
Sub- n In
. basin Project including
Upper Krishna . . 103.00 evapora- T.M.C.
tion
Minor Irrigation . . . 2.47 losses
105.47 K-6 . . . . . 5.51
.Kotipallivagu . . 2.00
K-3 . . . . . 37.63 Minor Irrigation . . 3.51
.Ghataprabha Stages I & II 36.60 5.51
Minor Irrigation . . 1.03
K-7 . . . . . 523.32
.
37.63 Koilsagar . . . 3.90
Okachettivagu . . 1.90
K-4 . . . . . 41.77
Dindi . . . . 3.70
.Malaprabha . . . 37.20 Guntur Channel 4.00
Minor Irrigation . . 4.57 Vaikunthapuram Pumping 2.60
. Nagarjunasagar . . 281.00
41.77
Krishna Delta Canals . 181.20
K-5 . . . . . .02 Minor Irrigation . . 45.02
.Minor Irrigation . . .02 . 523.32
K-6 . . . . . . 8.37 K-8 . . . . . 126.26
.Chandrampalli . . 1.90 Tungabhadra Right Bank
Low Level Canal . 29.50
Minor Irrigation . . 6.47
. Tungabhadra Right Bank High Level
8.37 Canal Stages I and
II . . . . . .
K-7 . . . . . .69
.Minor Irrigation Gajuledinne . . 2.00
.69 Rajolibunda Diversion . 15.90
K-8 . . . . . 272.35 Kurnool Cuddapah Canal . 39.90
Bhadra Anicut . . 3.10 Minor Irrigation . . 6.46
Tunga Anicut . . 11.50 .
126.26
Ambligola . . 1.40 K-9 . . . . . 12.47
Anjanpur . . . 2.50 Bhairavanitippa 4.90
Dharma canal and Minor Irrigation . . 7.57
Dharma Project 2.20
12.47
Tungabhadra Project Right
Bank Low Level canal 22.50 K-10 . . . . . 34.14
Tungabhadra Project Left Bank Musi . . . 9.40
Low Level Canal (including .Water Supply to twin city of
Bank High Level canal) . 92.00 Secunderabad and Hyderabad 3.90
Tungabhadra Right Bank High Minor Irrigation 20.84
Level Canal Stages I and II 17.50 34.14
Hagari Bomanhalli . 2.00 K-ll . . . . . 11.15
Bhadra Reservoir . 61.70 Palair . . . . 4.00
Vijayanagar Channel . 5.71 Minor Irrigation . . 7.15
Rajolibunda Diversion . 1.20 . . 11.15
Minor Irrigation . 49.04 K-12 . . . . . 36.31
.
272.35 Pakhal Lake . . . 2.60
Muniyeru . . . 3.30
K-9 . . . . . 38.07
.Vanivilas Sagar Lankasagar . . . 1.00
. . 8.20 Wyra . . . . 3.70
Minor Irrigation . . . 29.87 Minor Irrigation . . 25.71
36.31
38.07
TOTAL . . . . 749.16
TOTAL . . . . 504.55 .
.
 123
392
The preferred utilisation in the Krishna basin is
shown sub-basinwise in the following table :—
1 2 3 4 5
K-5 . . 250.65 .02 250.67
Maha- Andhra K-6 . . 1.61 8.37 5.51 15.49
Sub-basin Mysore Total
rashtra Pradesh .
K-7 . . .69 523.32 524.01
.K-8 . . 272.35 126.26 398.61
1 2 3 4 5
.K-9 . . 38.07 12.47 50.54
K-l . . 186.23 .18 186.41 .K-10 . . 34.14 34.14
. .K-11
K-2 . . .13 105.47 105.60 . . 11.15 11.15
.K-3 . . 1.03 37.63 38.66 .K-12 . . 36.31 36.31
.K-4 . . 41.77 41.77 . 439.65 504.55 749.16 1693.3
. 6
Issue 11(3) is answered accordingly.

MGIPRRND—1M of I & P/74—1st Day— 31-7-74—2000.

Price : Inland : Rs. 6.00
Foreign : £ 0.70 or $ 2.16

PRINTED BY THE MANAGER, GOVT. OF INDIA PRESS, RING ROAD, NEW

DELHI-110027
AND PUBLISHED BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-
110006
1974